- Date published:
7:18 am, July 27th, 2013 - 124 comments
Categories: blogs, Media, news, tv - Tags: 3 News, jono hutchison, jonolism
I’m always appalled by the difference between what political reporters report compared to what I see at political events. The political reporting from last year’s Labour conference being a good case in point. It always looks to me to be like egos trying to invent the news rather than simply reporting it. Jono Hutchison of 3 News is merely the latest. Normally I don’t comment all that much as I just view it as people caught up in the mystique of emulating fine ethics of the hacks from the News of the World.
However I’m rather irritated with Jono Hutchison. He ran a story that deliberately cherry picked a single comment from this site. Out of the stream of comments from people at the meeting he selected one that was there for no other purpose than to provide a angle. He wrote this:-
A post on the left-leaning blog The Standard says after Mr Cunliffe’s answer, Mr Shearer shouted angrily “We will be having a review.”
It wasn’t a “post”. It was a opinion in a comment from a commentator who is not exactly known to be a great supporter of the Labour party. Jono ignored all of the other comments about the meeting and the comments that said that Jenny was inaccurate – presumably because it was less of a story.
Now I was at that meeting after arriving a few minutes late. That meant that I was stuck in the foyer along with the other late comers. The hall was *full* and packed like a sardine can. David Shearer arrived somewhat later than I did. Unlike me, he slowly worked his way forward to the doors at the edge of the foyer and then started to work around to the right. Which was where he was when some obnoxious dickhead started yelling what would Labour and Shearer would do about this bill and forced a deliberately apolitical meeting to get political statements.
David Cunliffe was seated at the *front* of the hall, probably not aware of David Shearer at the back of the hall stood up, and took the mike. He expressed the Labour party stance and then expressed his own view, clearly stating it as his own. I saw David Shearer in profile shout out the Labour party stance that there would be a review and if Jenny in her *comment* thinks that was “angry” then she is completely mistaken.
That wasn’t David Shearer’s “angry” face. Hell – that wasn’t even his particularly irritated face. I’ve seen both at various times. Probably because I often suspect that I’m not one of his favourite people sometimes :twisted:. Not that is anything particularly unusual – Helen was often of a similar opinion. I’m not particularly interested in being either popular nor politic.
That just looked like David shouting out over the crowd in support of David Cunliffe’s statement. Which is pretty much what almost all of the other comments said in response to Jenny’s unusually later comment this morning (I swear she gets up early to write comments).
He wasn’t the only party leader who wasn’t able to speak either. Hone Harawira was also in the lobby and looked mildly eager to go forward at about the same time. However there was a rather dense crowd between where he was and where the front of the hall was….
Oh dear – I have probably given that pretence of a “reporter” Jono Hutchison his next big story. The lazy arsehole is probably planning a story about how the crowd was blocking Hone’s driveway. It seems to be his style. In fact it seems like the 3 News style these days as they desperately hunt stories. Sometimes it works. Most of the time it just turns people off watching TV News.
Now as people who know this site are aware I get *irritated* when people try to use this site or try to make dumbarse stories up about it. Most of the reporters who lurk around the comments here use the opinions from comments here as background. That is safe.
If you are wanting to use this site as a source, then it behoves you to report accurately in the context of all of the opinions. Cherry picking a single opinion to make a story or just inventing one could result in some of us (especially me) unkindly returning the favour…
Update: I see that boring fart Pete George is making his usual bullshit about my “confirming” Jenny’s story. As is usual with this clown of the local blogs he has deliberately spun my clear statements into a lying dogwhistle.
Just to be clear enough in terms that even a Peter Dunne apologist can not fail to understand.
I have and had no idea what David Shearer was saying. I could see him, but not hear him. This was a crowded meeting and got quite noisy during the question time. You’d have to have been immediately next to or in front of David to have heard what he said.
I suspect that some armchair general interviewing his typewriter in Dunedin shouldn’t display such certainty about events in Auckland. PG probably does in his attempt to divert from the GCSB debate (and to divert attention from Peter Dunne’s puppy impressions – rolling over and playing dead for a pat on the head).
Fair enough. I guess if you phone them and ask to speak to the lazy dickhead you’ll get asked do you want Jono or Duncan?
I really don’t care. I’ll take the name on the story as the target…
I don’t watch 3 News. Only Campbell Live. TV News media’s certainly gone downhill fast into the grubby US style “news-star”, sensationalist, partisan, trivial gossip format. But this tripe is what many viewers form their opinions from about what’s happening in their world and their parliament.
You forgot Paddy makeitup Gower.
Only because I never watch him and can’t fathom why anybody else does. 🙂
Accidents do happen..
This seems to be a particularly pathetic, rather unbelievable case of shoddy reporting from a TV3 reporter.
Perhaps tomorrow night TV3 might cover the comment you have made here, lprent, and do a story on the cheap and lazy reporting habits of the NZ media and perhaps get a vox-pop from Jono on the subject?
Or maybe they might choose to cover the content of the meeting that occurred last night and inform NZers on what was actually discussed?
Sounded like pretty important information to me.
I switched on the TV One news to see how the meeting was covered and there didn’t appear to be anything on it? Did I miss it? Or was it simply not covered?
I only watched the first half hour but I don’t think it featured. Amazing. That was a significant event, the panel was august, the hall was packed, there were lots of newsworthy clips and sound bytes. The panel articulated the problems cogently, I learnt a lot about the legislation and issues. Heaps of people have no idea what could go wrong with this Act if passed, or why it’s being rushed, there’s no terrorist or other threat. It’s just not on their radar. Our media actually is dumbing us down. Hopefully the protests will get the message through on the news, but I’m not optimistic.
“Our media actually is dumbing us down”
It is pretty incredible really isn’t it…just how blatant this is getting.
Has Anyone written a complaint about this latest case of ‘Make it up jooonaallissm??
For once I’m actually interested in reading Jenny’s comment on this post. I reckon she must type up her; greener than thou Open Mike comments, the previous evening, or else be a demon typist if she just gets up early (It’s often a contest between her and Morrissey to be first on Open Mike; and his is usually a single quote added to a longer cut and pasted list). It’s admirable in a way, I rarely get enough time to read all the comments on a post let alone make one myself.
Still, at least the TV3 story will have helped raise some public interest and awareness about today’s protest at 2pm. For those not online and/ or in Auckland the publicity hasn’t been overwhelming; I’ve done a bit of word of mouth to friends and they hadn’t heard about it at all. Haven’t seen any posters/ flyers up either. Hopefully student radio has been promoting it but it’s just been music when I’ve tuned in this week.
I hope TV3 (and One News) provide a more accurate account of today’s protests – and use the opportunity to explain why people are very unhappy with the GCSB and related Bills.
The GCSB Bill is far too anti-democratic and damaging for Kiwis for journalists to be diverting attention to made up episodes in an apparent leadership struggle.
The disquiet about this GCSB arse covering bill is widespread and widening. It has long since extended well outside the usual activist and civil liberties areas and is rapidly progressing into some quite unlikely areas.
Apart from the few simple minded authoritarians that every society throws up and who love the idea of absolute security (with themselves as arbiters of correct behavior), most kiwis value their ability to dissent. There are always risks in merely living, let alone in the type of dynamically shifting society that we clearly so enjoy – so perfect security at any level is never possible. And history tells us that to concentrate it in the office of a single person and their handpicked cronies providing the check is a recipe for fundamental screwups.
Yet this is exactly what John Key’s reflexive and badly thought through bill tries to achieve…. To try to sneak it through the house on the basis of a single vote and a whipped National party without getting a widespread agreement instinctively is just nuts. All it does is start to raise the argument that maybe the GCSB is too dangerous to have around if we want to maintain our domestic debates when a participant in those debates appoints all of the checks and has direct oversight of it.
Can’t say that our society is “dynamically shifting”. In fact, I’d describe it as stuck in a rut and going nowhere fast.
No, it was his arrogant “face”, and his “correction” of David Cunliffe, “We will be having a review”, were the words of a bully.
This is the very littlest that Shearer has to concede to the mass opposition to this bill.
There is little difference between Peter Dunne’s support call for “a review” than there is for David Shearer’s call for “a review”.
In my opinion both are expressing a fall back position trying to square their support for this law.
That one is decried while the other is defended is just sectarian blindness.
That one is supported as part of a deal. Though not moral, is at least understandable.
That the other is supported because that is your political opinion. Is just that political opinion. And right wing political opinion at that.
In promising a review and not a repeal of this legislation, David Shearer is expressing a political opinion not dissimilar to Peter Dunne, but also not dissimilar to John Key.
David Cunliffe is correct this bill must not and will not and cannot stand. If David Shearer can’t articulate that, (or any other thing for that matter), then he should get out of the way.
You really are confusing the issues, Jenny.
It’s about accuracy.
I can see there are reasons for disagreeing with Shearer’s stance on calling for a review. That’s another issue.
You claimed that Shearer was angrily correcting Cunliffe at the meeting. That is what is in dispute.
The main issue in Lynn’s post is that Jono cherry picked your dodgy judgment, and focused on that over all the other people who perceived the exchanges differently – and all with the aim by 3 News of focusing on personality conflicts over the more pressing issues that the meeting was about.
The question for us all karol, is whether in 2014 we are voting for a review of this bill (which is already agreed to by Dunne and Key) or whether we are voting for it to be repealed.
Why would people vote for the status quo?
Surely this is a recipe for electoral disaster.
The difference is when the bill is reviewed and the process by which it is reviewed.
If you want your opinion to be the only approach, that it should simply be repealed (before it is passed), then go and raise the votes for a party that will do so (if there is such a party). I won’t support that because I think it is rather simplistic and verges on being dangerous. With the developing powers implied in our tech world, having them unrestrained by law is at least as dangerous as their misuse.
In the meantime, I’ll work for this bill to not pass in its current form, and for a wider ranging debate about how and why the security forces in this country should be controlled.
Jenny, you are confusing what the reviews are.
the reviews in the bill are of the operations of the GCSB under the Act. They are not reviews of the Act and how it is performing. They are basically performance reviews to see if the GCSB is complying with the Act.
The review labour has been calling for are of the whole security apparatus, ie, they are of how the GCSB, and the SIS are have operated both individually and together. The review Labour has called for is prompted by the illegal actions the GCSB has admitted. It is aimed at dragging it all into the light and having a truly independent reviewing body finding out the extent of what happened, and how it happened.
From that review a new framework, ie legislation, can be discussed.
That’s what they have committed to. You may well think they have other ideas, and that it’s all just a fig leaf. But assuming so only lets them off the hook, and gives them that option. Far better to hold them to what they have actually committed to doing, making that position more public by repeating it, and commending them for taking it.
The fact is, you made shit up for your own weird reasons, and that got used by a lazy shallow media feeding their own horse race narrative. You made the GCSB meeting a story about Cunliffe vs Shearer that was utterly baseless.
well done, *golf claps*
Well said, PB.
Re your “The review labour has been calling for are of the whole security apparatus, ie, they are of how the GCSB, and the SIS are have operated both individually and together.”
My understanding is that the review that Labour, Greens etc are calling for is, as you say, of the whole security apparatus. This includes not just the GCSB and the SIS, but a number of other agencies and committees etc that are also involved – for example, parts of NZ Police and DPMC.
This is a side issue, but unless I have missed it, I also note that Jenny has not replied to Weka’s question yesterday as to whether she was actually at the meeting. My conclusion/perception is that she was not.
You say tomato, I say tamato. You say Potatau, I say Potato.
PS. I liked your comment about *golf claps*. That made me laugh. And God knows there is not much to laugh about in this debate. My fear is that the strategy promoted by David Shearer will just be an in, for the continuation of BAU for the spying industry.
The reviews are very different. Whether or not an orange is an apple is not a case of tomato/tamato.
You should keep up ‘Jenny’, David Shearer has clarified the Labour position which is,
Labour will conduct a full review of the Legislation and based upon the findings of that review will rewrite the Legislation,
i wasn’t there,at the meeting the other night that is, but, a person, in this instance Dave Shearer, who i assume being at the back of the hall didn’t have access to a microphone, wanting to be heard will yell out as he obviously did, in my opinion hardly cause for you to opine ‘anger’ from such an interjection,
i do take issue with your current description of the words Shearer used, ”We will be having a review” as Bullying, (i assume you mean of Cunliffe)…
why did you say he was angrily correcting if you actually meant arrogantly correcting? On what basis do you profess to know what was in his head? Words have power whether spoken by Shearer or mis-written by you.
and why was he “correcting” Cunliffe, because he simply repeated what Cunliffe started off by saying?
This. A lie is a lie, Jenny.
Read the post again.
What I was objecting to was a 3 News “reporter” taking a single comment (yours) off this site that several other commentators had already objected to, calling it a post, and spinning it to look like the opinion of the site. It wasn’t.
You have a liberty to express your opinions and even your interpretations of events here – that is what the site is for (subject to the limitations in the policy). But you will and do get others disagreeing with both.
For instance, most of your comment was somewhat foolish in my opinion. Most of the provisions of this bill are already sort of present in some of the existing legislation because some of that is ambiguous. That is why the police and the GCSB managed to obtain legal opinion that said that their existing activities could be argued as being legal. Many observers (including the courts) have taken the view that it was not legal.
Many, including me, do not want to have these particular activities legislated for without effective checks. Having the PM’s office appoint all of the checks while also being a participant in the domestic political debates is a clear conflict of interest.
But we also wanting to have the ambiguous legal position clarified. Legal ambiguities and unclear lines of responsibility and authority in the hands of security forces are actually far more dangerous than even this lines of authority set up in this bill. There are many cases overseas that can be pointed to where such lacks have resulted in security forces being coming a political force on their own with their ability to blackmail politicians and override the legal scrutiny of courts.
Simply repealing this bill if passed will just result in those legal ambiguities being left in place. It would be hard to find anyone from any side who would want that. Which is why there will be legislation, but it should be done with a clear and open public participation about what is acceptable for organisations like the GCSB, SIS, and police to do – a review that this legislation has not had.
Bullshit, Jenny. Cunliffe said there would be a review. Shearer said there would be a review. There was no difference between the two men’s positions but you claimed Shearer angrily corrected Cunliffe. You made that up. It didn’t happen. You owe Shearer, and the readers here, an apology.
This is the climax to a brilliant career of obsessively attempting to drive wedges between people who would otherwise bridge their differences.
I’ve simply learned not to lend Jenny’s future observations any credibility unless supported by independent sources.
Oh and that the same goes for Jono Hutchinson and any report of his appearing on TV3 or elsewhere.
Well that’s two independent sources to start with. How many more do you think you need?
Maybe we could do an online poll of all those at the meeting within earshot and clear view of David Shearer to give us their opinion.
What do you think?
Would that satisfy you?
“Well that’s two independent sources to start with. How many more do you think you need?”
Say what? You’re on your lonesome as far as I can tell. On one hand, a packed hall who didn’t hear a thing, versus you hearing Shearer angrily correcting Cunliffe … by, er, saying exactly the same thing Cunliffe said. Only louder. And angrier.
That’s the crux of the matter TRP. If Shearer was saying exactly what Cunliffe was saying why did he need to so rudely interject it?
And by the way, there were a number of other people who have confirmed they heard David Shearer say “We will be having a review”. Notice the full stop. This was after Cunliffe said our leader has promised a review and “this law must not, will not and can not stand”. Shearer’s unmissable message is “WE WILL BE HAVING A REVIEW’ full stop. And no, heartfelt “this bill cannot stand” nonsense will be tolerated.
It looks to me that we are in line for another tragic sell out.
“That’s the crux of the matter TRP. If Shearer was saying exactly what Cunliffe was saying why did he need to so rudely interject it?”
Exactly. Shearer didn’t rudely interrupt. You made that up.
[lprent: That was just me screwing up the phrasing when I wrote the post after midnight and after a long hard day. See the end of the post with the update and explanation I wrote for Pete George who made the same mistake in the morning.
I saw David Shearer say something at the end of Cunliffe’s statement when the crowd was clapping but I didn’t and couldn’t have heard what it was. My point in the post was that whatever it was it wasn’t angry as you’d asserted – something that you clearly wish to avoid addressing. Whatever he was saying could have been to David Parker or Barbara and he was shouting over the clapping.
At the time of writing the post I assumed that you’d been correct about what he’d actually said because you were closer to him than I was. But reviewing your comments I see that you have never even said that you were at the meeting.
Were you at the meeting? And if so where EXACTLY were you sitting in the crowd? Stating this will probably help readers determine exactly how credible that what you heard was accurate.
Based on what was in the video audio stream you were completely incorrect and I suspect that you heard an interjector saying “Not a Review” which shows up clearly in the right audio channel of that video you referenced. ]
Keep ignoring the fact that you provided national’s ammunition for that night’s misrepresentative jonolism, Jenny. Not Shearer, nor anyone else in that room. You went off half-cocked, as usual, and it was bullshit. The fact that you seem to be the only one who thinks shearer was “angry” and “rudely interject[ed]” should give you pause for thought.
But it won’t. The backlash will just reinforce your already-entrenched beliefs.
I know that I’m not supposed to be “lookist” but is one of the qualifying requirements to be a 3News political reporter that you have to appear to have been a character in one of the nightmare dream sequences in Twin Peaks.
lolz! They do all seem to have a touch of Lynch about them.
These clowns think its a stage and they are the talent. Garner, gower and now this idiot, they are just following masters orders and not caring about what actually happens.
They need to plunder this site because they dont do any real work of their own. The tories would be struggling if they did their job. Their bosses former employers would be appalled at what he allows to pass as journalism. if jennings filed this kind of crap at the ABC he have been shown the door……sold out methinks.
I think all this ad hominim abuse is all a sorry case of shooting the messenger.
I am sorry to bring you the bad news. But shooting the messenger won’t improve the news.
And the message is, that if David Shearer behaves like this in the electoral debates John Key will eat him alive on national TV.
Just for fun, I’d like to suggest that future examples of lazy news reporting are tagged as ‘jonolism’. ie Hi, I’m a jonolist from 3 News or look Mum I’ve won an award for my jonolism etc.
Heh! Almost worth doing as an object lesson…
+1. Lol. Jonolism is where reporters simply Garner their own news.
I had assumed this obsession with Labour’s leadership was some personal mental problem of Gower’s but obviously I was wrong. If this was all 3News could find to report about that meeting, the problem goes a lot higher than Gower.
Gower’s Jono’s boss right?
Can’t hurt to help your boss’s narrative along a little I reckon.
Good point. Lucky Jono, eh?
If there is to be one interesting aspect to this comprehensive mass surveillance that Dunne, Key and their close associates of the “lets bring back the SS” ilk, it is the weight of information that will be constantly spiralling around in cyberspace.
The ineffectiveness of government security has repeatedly shown that hacking is a kind of picnic for very junior nerds in search of fame. Whether here or in the land of America (God Bless America) data theft is in the easy peasy category.
So the bright new wider total spying on all New Zealanders by Dunne and Key could well serve to make the hitherto private lives of reporters available to the public. It will be captured as it wings it way to America. For, as you know Dunne and key has promised every breath we breathe to them. John Key is a sweet caring man when it comes to assisting our betters oversees.
Journalist / Reporters / Presenters always put themselves across as pure as the driven snow, moral clean skins. Even when they are reporting foibles, body language, stupidity, violence verbal or physical. Smug lot.
These were the people who as a profession spied on Princess Diana’s phones. Then published her vivid sex life from it. Not a single murmur of horror emerged from their tawdry profession. They were apparently happy she was muddied and mired by their actions. Not even a tiny bit of concern shown towards her children. Bastards.
I am not saying that Jonos’ life will make much of a read, but it might make him think about all NZers and how very real information about every single one of us will be bucketing around the world to please Peter Dunne and his cobber key. There will be no sympathy for journos jono. None.
Requirements for role as TV3 news reporter:
2. Belief that one is part of the story
3. Belief that the public overlooks 1 above and wants more of 2 above
4. Robustness in lashing/ignoring those who identify/object to 1 and or 2
5. Ability to make shit up
6. Fondness for cheap suits
7. Name which is easily corruptible into such asDungCan Gooner or
8. Preparedness to upsticks at any time and take remunerative
employment wiping the arse of power which while working
as TV3 reporter has been obseqiously licked
TV3 reporter one has licked
NB being easy on the eye is not a requirement since Mediaworks is an equal opportunity employer and is tasteless in any event.
Requirements for role as TV3 news reporter:
2. Belief that one is part of the story
3. Belief that the public overlooks 1 above and wants more of 2 above
4. Robustness in lashing/ignoring those who identify/object to 1 and or 2
5. Ability to make shit up
6. Fondness for cheap suits
7. Name which is easily corruptible into such as DungCan Gooner or
8. Preparedness to upsticks at any time and take remunerative
employment wiping the arse of power which while working
as TV3 reporter has been obseqiously licked
NB being easy on the eye is not a requirement since Mediaworks is an equal opportunity employer and is tasteless in any event.
New personnel at TV3 I wonder? The composition (“mixing’?) of the news clips has become particularly bizarre and blatantly anti-Labour as of late. Resembles amateur-hour comedy from the 70s at times, or subliminal manipulation amateur-hour. Random snatches of laughter and phrases from totally anonymous and/or utterly unrelated sources inserted after Labour politicians – a blond woman shrieking derisively after Clayton Cosgrove last week, a phrase from Dotcom last night – so utterly blatant as to be almost humorous.
Their 6 o’clock news has seemed more pro-government for the past few months. A different Producer?
Should gower now be called patsy. In that strange interview he did with key out in some suburban street, he asked the question (sounding very much like mags barry) “Why do you think Dotcom is coming after you all the time? key was able to give his usual long involved mangled answer about Dotcom running scared, extradition, yadayada. It was absolutely a set up. gower is not a political reporter he is keys go to man Has been ever since they both piddled in the same swimming pool at some summit meeting or other. They are both oily little reptiles.
The Standard should have a weekly ‘post’ inviting nominations and reasons for the journo twat of the week. And a list of twats, plus a tally of how many times they have had the dishonour of being the winning twat, can be kept.
It would be quite assuring to see which old twats keep committing journalistic offences, plus also point out the rising young twits who are on the way to replace the brain dead old farty twats.
I think it would be a loooong list…..probably too long to post on the site.
LOLZ i had the misfortune to read the Fifth Column piece on Shearer written by Fran O’Sullivan this morning,
Utter tripe in the vein of ”Shearer must kiss the ass of business leaders to get anywhere”, another of the National Party cheerleading press attempting to further undermine the struggling Labour leader which they did to Goff ad nauseum leading into the 2011 election,
When i am watching news on my TV these days i listen as much for the ‘spin’ being put on any and every story by whoever is reporting it,
Gower, the Alfred E Nuemann of television reporting now has competition in the ‘idiot stakes’, my opinion is that Jono hasn’t quite risen to the level that Alfred E managed at the Labour Party conference but the ‘golden turd award’ is within Jono’s sight if not His grasp…
I have not been able to bring myself to read Fran’s latest, but stupidly read John Armstrong’s ‘dream’ piece on Simon Bridges, the best thing since sliced bread. I don’t recommend it for the sake of your blood pressure.
I have left the mainstream media in my rear vision mirror long ago. They are a bunch of right wing clowns, perhaps with the notable exception of John Campbell who seems to have reasonable journalistic integrity.
they will have to do more than kiss business arse to get business support. The Nats are doing more than pressing its lips to bum cheeks of business.
Someone has to stand for all the new Zealanders who are not business owners or CEOs of large businesses and that’s an awful big electorate right there
Agreed. I think we need a new party along the lines of the German SDP that is actually a proper left wing party that is socialist as opposed to the ersatz option Labour offers or fails to offer in this case.
Right wing media, need I say more…..
tellit like it is dude!
I wasn’t at the meeting, but I did watch TV3, and I vividly remember Shearer being shown saying angrily “We will be having a review”, after Cunliffe did a great speech – the kind of speech that Shearer doesn’t seem capable of giving. Maybe Shearer wasn’t angry, but he sure gave that impression to me and a million potential left-wing voters.
Maybe Shearer wasn’t angry, but he sure gave that impression to me and a million potential left-wing voters.
I have no time for Shearer, but I saw the debate, and the TV3 news clip, and I don’t see that, and I doubt a million potential left wing voters got the same impression as you.
Yeah, I think everyone saw that, hence the laughter on the couch. Was invisible to the left it seems. Maybe they are so use to Shearers bs.
Absolute twaddle from an obvious National-ACT acolyte who is conditioned to misread anything placed in front of you. Our bitter laughter was at the blatant misreporting which we have come to expect from the MSM in NZ….
I’ve campaigned against ACT and National for many years, and I’m sure Jenny has too. Have a look at this if you’d like proof of that:
Sure we are displeased at Labour for the moment. An improvement in Labour’s leadership would fix that.
Thank you, Sir Peter
Jono aspires to some hefty company.
Pesonaly Lynn I think you give me to much credit. It is quite possible that Jono Hutchinson, along with the rest of the media contingent, were in just as good as position as me to witness this exchange. Notice how the camera swings to Shearer for his response, (And there was a huge media presence there with an awful lot of cameras and microphones). And they were all quite close to, and within earshot, of where David Shearer was standing. (unfortunately for him).
Jono Hutchinson may have picked up my commentary because he thought it best reflected what he himself had witnessed. That he called it a post was unfortunate, but rather than being a deliberate misrepresentation, may well have been just a simple error.
By the way. Talking about deliberate misrepresentations:
I happened to be very close to this event as well.
It was in the question period of the meeting. The person had put up their hand to ask a question, and was handed the mike. As they began to speak they were interrupted by Kim Dotcom who had wanted to more fully answer a previous questioner. The speaker waited patiently until Kim Dotcom had finished speaking, before again beginning to ask his question. Despite what you falsely claim the questioner did not yell his question, in fact you can barely hear it on the audio. In another piece of misrepresentation by you the speaker did not ask what Labour or Shearer would do. In fact they never mentioned either Shearer or Labour They asked a question of their question of “The opposition Parties”.
Though you and David Shearer obviouslly thought this person was an “obnoxious dickhead”. Personally I did not think that the questioner was obnoxious at all, neither did David Cunliffe, who answered his question with grace and dignity and obvious sincerity which became for me the high point of the meeting. While Shearer was doing his embarrassing two step for the cameras that reminded me of John Key’s three way handshake.
As for the meeting being “apolitical” it was a political meeting, to discuss political issues. I have always noticed that it is a hall mark of the Right to claim that they are above politics and often use the tactic of accusing their opponents of being “political” to shut down debate. What they really mean is that there is only one kind of politics allowed, their kind. Despite claims that they are apolitical such people are as political as all hell. That there is some questions that they don’t want to take and they will use the accusation that you are being “Political” to refuse to answer them.
Point 1: Both bits of video I have seen show a cutaway to Shearer. Living with a film producer (and suffering through the edits) makes you quite aware of those. It is something that can be plugged in from any period in the time sequence. Perhaps you should link to the footage and give a timestamp that shows a “swing” to prove your assertion because I haven’t seen one (and it’d be highly unlikely that a cameraman would do one under these circumstances).
However that there was at least one camera placed to shoot to the back of the hall is obvious because I have seen many cutaways from it. I’d have expected that such a camera would have been on David Shearer while David Cunliffe was speaking. So why is such a newsworthy story not being shown?
Furthermore any camera and/or mic pointing even vaguely towards Shearer (they are directional but it is from the other side of the hall) would have picked up him “shouting” on its audio track. So why hasn’t anyone isolated the track and published it?
It would be such a good story…
Point 2: There were a *lot* of media, cameras and mics there. To date there has been exactly *no-one* nor any footage or audio who has stood up and confirmed what you asserted.
The nearest here was jaymam who thinks that he saw it on the video on TV (but can’t find it).
I have said that your assertion that Shearer “shouted” anything “angrilly” was something that I didn’t see from watching behind and to the left of David Shearer. I was watching him in profile when David Cunliffe was speaking because I could see Shearer whereas I couldn’t see the front of the hall..
Basically I think that you are bullshitting and hearing more what you want to hear than what happened. That is fine I kind of expect that in comments. I’m more concerned that TV3 decided that made a story and invented jonolism.
Point 3: I didn’t see what had happened in the front. I wasn’t describing what I’d heard on the audio track, I described what I heard from the foyer at the back of the hall. And it was loud. But to me it didn’t sound like it was from the front of the hall. It sounded like it was up towards the back. There is a curious feature of mics that makes them different to human ears – they tend to be more directional.
Point 4: I wasn’t aware that you’d organised the meeting? I was merely reflecting the request from the moderator and several of the speakers. It was largely apolitical until that dickhead made it party political.
As you point out Lynn camera mikes are directional and at the time Shearer made his retort the camera from the feed I watched, had swung to Cunliffe. And it stayed on him. Before going to the Green Party speaker.
I can only guess, but the reason no one has isolated the track and published it. Is who would have a motive to do such a thing? As some here have opined over several threads, the right have become champions and erstwhile advisers to David Shearer.
Have you forgotten that in the Post at the head of this thread you yourself said this:
As to what moved Shearer to shout out this retort which was directed at Cunliffe. Is to to ask why anyone shouts at anyone. There are a number of possible reasons. It was noisy due to all the other interjectors and talkers and Shearer wanted to make sure that Cunliffe heard him.ie a threat not to stray from the official Party line. He was shouting to be heard by the general crowd to contradict Cunliffe’s assertion that this bill cannot stand, so as not to give false hope to people of what Labour will do when in office, ie signaling a sell out.
I think Lynn you can think of a number of other reasons, none of them pleasant. Shearer could have just been simply pissed off that Cunliffe had spoken and not him. Exposing himself as a petty bully.
I was closer to both Shearer and Parker than you, and could witness his body language.
How about this.
We publish a transcript of the leaders contributions as you admitted they happened. Without any emphasis or added punctuation. And let the readers decide. In my transcript which you have censored I put Shearer’s verbatim words in Capitals to denote that they were shouted. (As you admit) how about we put them in smaller case.
However you read it. It still looks hostile.
[lprent: FFS: Have you read the whole of my post?
It was written after midnight, and Pete George made exactly the same misreading as you just did. I wrote an update at the end of the post in the morning to make it clear what I saw and heard. I couldn’t hear what Shearer said. I could only see it. Basically if you are relying on my late-night phrasing for “support” then I’d say that you have absolutely nothing (apart from acquiring a rep for being too lazy to read the whole post).
I listened to that video you referenced quite closely – I suggest you do the same. Most of the audio is on the left channel when it is focused on Cunliffe. Shearer was clearly on the right. There is an interjector on the right audio channel who shouts “Repeal”, then “Not a Review”, and then “That is rubbish” immediately after Cunliffe says that there will be a review. It is quite clear and it also isn’t Shearer. Just turn off the left channel and listen to it.
I was no more than 12 feet away from Shearer to the rear and left. I was able to see him clearly standing in the doorway of the hall and in just about a perfect body language position. I could see the whole of his back, face in profile, and his legs. I didn’t have to twist, turn or do anything to observe him. I watched him through the Cunliffe speech because I couldn’t see Cunliffe, and I’d been observing Shearer I’d seen him in front of me. Perhaps you should state *exactly* where you were in the hall to get a better view of his body language.
When I saw Shearer say something loudly it was during the clapping at the end of Cunliffe’s statement, not during it. He could have been saying something loudly to Parker over the clapping. He did not shout anything during the statement. Which seems to agree with what you seem to be claiming.
Now I’m aware that you have been avoiding this next question. There would have been NO reason for him to tell Cunliffe to hew to the party line then – because Cunliffe had already finished doing exactly that. Basically you appear to be both illogical and delusional on this point which has been raised by others and you have not addressed.
I think you have been spinning up a delusion out of nothing more than mistaking an earlier interjection for being Shearer. Put up some actual evidence if you can find any. Make sure it is clearly linked and timed so others can examine it. But as it stands at present I view your statements as being complete bullshit.
Above all I’d suggest that you stop trying to drag my statements into your pissant delusion because they do not support your view and because that trying to twist my posts is I can ban for. Now that is hostile.. ]
Lynn. Whether or not it can be proved that Shearer shouted out “We will be having a review”. I know what I heard. (And saw) Your supporters are not even saying that I am mistaken. You let them call me a liar, letting them attack my integrity at will. When I challenge them to show just one example of this, which you know they can’t, you blank it out. In this you are colluding with those who are trying to paint me as a liar. These are the actions of a bully.
I know that you are hostile to my attempt to make climate change an election issue, which by all accounts indicate it will not be. To this end you are trying to use a minor dispute to attack my integrity and ultimately to shut me out, so that you can happily have your election coverage and debate in peace, free to ignore climate change. Don’t deny it you have already expressed this view. It is, “Politics 101”. not to expend political capital on this one issue, you said.
I can see the writing on the wall. Go ahead disgrace yourself.
In my opinion we should be expending every form of capital we have to defeat this menace.
In this ongoing debate between you and me, it doesn’t surprise me that you take David Shearer’s side against David Cunliffe. In my opinion David Cunliffe is the only parliamentarian who has taken climate change seriously.
I thought Cunliffe’s contribution was dignified and sincere while Shearer’s was churlish and uncalled for. You disagree. I suppose we all make our own bed and have to lie in it. Live then, with an administration that will permit the continuation of climate change and the collection of metadata against its citizens, you will have done your part to bring it about.
Read my back posts. I write and have written at least a third of all my posts on climate change and the politics of it.
However my earth sciences degree and three decade old interest in the topic also means that I am interested in facts and rather adverse to fantasies about it – which seems to be your forte. Running fantasies about its effects is the direct cause of much of the political opposition to dealing with it.
It alienates much of the natural support amongst the ‘practical’ people of the world when they hear so much obvious bullshit being sprouted about it. The classic one is the over-emphasis on sea levels when that is a centuries long shift. So they don’t look at the actual immediate implications like its impact on feeding the worlds populations.
Mobilizing support has very little to do with ranting. It has more to do with making clear arguments targeted at the and resonating with the audience you are addressing.
In my opinion David Cunliffe is the only parliamentarian who has taken climate change seriously.
Really? Strange bias from a green leftie
I am a Cunliffe supporter and give him my electorate vote. But the above statement is really just not accurate. Green MPs take it very seriously.
“It is quite possible that Jono Hutchinson, along with the rest of the media contingent, were in just as good as position as me to witness this exchange.”
Bullshit. Just like your claim that Shearer angrily corrected Cunliffe.
Come on TRP, you can do better than this. Shouldn’t you be defending lprent and Shearer.
Weak. I’d like to be able to defend you, actually, but there are no grounds for that. You owe Shearer an apology.
TRP I will apologise in full and at length, with added mea culpas for forgiveness, when a David Shearer led Labour Party and government makes the collection, storage and offshore transfer of Metadata spying on all New Zealanders by the GCSB, the SIS, the police and military intelligence a criminal offence.
I will also apologise fulsomly and immediately if the Labour leader announces that the first task of any review will be release the names of the 88 New Zealanders illegally spied on. And promise to press charges against any of those who from now are still currently carrying out this illegal spying. Effectively giving these secret agencies a decease or desist notice, or else.
Until then I will continue to hold David Shearer’s feet to the fire.
Does ‘feet to the fire’ mean lie in your world?
It would be much easier to hold his feet to the fire if he would “lie” down.
Come on TRP I am getting tired of this, why can’t you debate the substantive issues?
The substantive issue is a concocted 3 news story based on a concocted story by you. You owe Shearer, and TS readers, an apology.
Jenny is not responsible for Jono the jonolist sharing her perspective to the rest of NZ.
Jenny was entitled to express her opinion openly and still is.
She does not owe anyone an apology.
How about you take the shoddy journalism up with TV3 and stop attacking the wrong person.
Jenny claimed that Shearer angrily attacked Cunliffe. He didn’t. She’s not responsible for Hutchison’s shoddy journalism, but she is responsible for her own words.
Yes, and would you be making such a big deal if it hadn’t been reported by jono-the-jonolist?
I don’t think so
Write to jono or TV3, they are the ones at fault, not Jenny.
Hassle them and get over it.
Personally I haven’t bothered to do anything except respond to Jenny (just did it yet again) and others when she or they have made assertions. Similarly I haven’t noticed others doing much more when scanning for moderation. Of course I’m only going through tonight’s late night sweep now
Most of the opprobrium in the post and in the comments has been directed at jono and the jonolism of TV3.
update: looks much the same..
update: nope. Looks like jenny did an unsourced “transcription” that reads like fantasy.
Check the thread. I called bullshit on Jenny’s claim an hour after she commented. I was the first to do so, but not the only one. This was well before Hutchison wrote his piece (presumably ignoring all the comments pointing out the bullshit aspects of her bullshit comment).
Jenny made a claim she cannot back up. That’s been my go from the beginning. I’m still waiting for her to fess up, but I suspect she doesn’t believe the moral standards she demands of others apply to her.
“Until then I will continue to hold David Shearer’s feet to the fire.”
An unfortunate turn of phrase (although admittedly I’ve just been watching season 3 of GoT).
I think that it is time to put up the two contributions from these Labour Party leaders at this meeting, side by side for our readers to decide.
[lprent: Basically Janny is talking crap. She is referring to this video which is appears to have been done by amateurs and has been put up with a particularly bad chapter resolution. ]
Was Cunliffe’s lyrical and heartfelt contribution inspiring?
Was Shearer’s terse and forceful contribution hostile?
A question from the floor
[lprent: Just after 1:15:00. Interestingly, this wasn’t the one I heard at the foyer and was referring to. There was some dickhead shouting at the back of the room a bit earlier. ]
A simple question. People want to know the answer.
The camera pans towards David Shearer. David Shearer’s hand waving and fluttering in the air, stepping forward stepping back. With voices calling for him to comment. Mute, David Shearer looks at the floor, crosses his arms, looks to David Parker, giving a small nervous/embarrassed chuckle. Finally, David Cunliffe has to step in to save Shearer further embarrassing himself.
[lprent: The camera sweeps to Shearer (~1:15:30), who realises how hard it will be to get to the front of the room. Looks like there is some pointing to do with getting a mic to him. Then Cunliffe starts speaking, and Shearer chuckles to Parker and looks relieved (~1:15:50). Jenny’s interpretation looks like a complete fantasy to me – but it is all about interpretation. ]
(Despite some people rudely talking over him.) Drawing on Labour Party history Cunliffe gives a lyrical reply, with a spontaneous emotional and dramatic, maybe hokey, but obviously sincerely heartfelt introduction.
[lprent: I’ve listened to this with headphones and various filters. Jenny is lying – you cannot detect this statement in this audio stream at all.
There is some interjector on the right audio channel that you can hear (on headphones and after chopping out the left channel) saying or shouting “Repeal” followed by “not a review” followed by “that is rubbish”. He starts doing that while Cunliffe is saying “And based upon what we have heard here tonight”. The same person appears to say some other statements after Cunliffe stops speaking but they obscured by the clapping.
However it isn’t Shearer. Doesn’t sound like Shearer. And the words aren’t what Jenny reckons anyway.
Jenny BTW: At 1:20:00 the moderator repeats the request to not have the party political stuff (in the absence of Peter Dunne). Perhaps you missed these clear signs when you were looking at the video that the meeting was intended to be apolitical ]
Gods forbid anyone question your integrity given your extensive history of making shit up to suit your own narrative, but care to link to the footage you’re claiming to transcribe?
omg, she’s turning into morrissey…
I’d like to know what bizarre universe it is we’ve all ended up in where we’re feeling compelled to speak up for Shearer. Planet Jenny.
Lol. I feel your pain and I share it.
I’ve had a nice warm glow of happiness and belonging all evening, but I suspect it might be fleeting 😉
I didn’t include any links for three reasons.
1#. The standard audio did not capture Shearer’s comment. (But I a sure that an enhanced audio would reveal it.)
[lprent: Don’t need to enhance it. Just turn the left audio channel off and listen to the right. You hear interjector saying “Repeal!” then “Not a review” and then “That is rubbish” during Cunliffe’s statement. But it wasn’t Shearer. You can hear the same dickhead doing similar bullshit through large chunks of the Q&A. ]
2# I have already provided the video/audio link at the beginning of this debate. But for you I will do it again. Here at 1:15:00.
3# The confirming statements from others who heard Shearer’s shouted comment or admitted that it occurred are all over the thread.
Now, how about you providing a link where I have ever “made shit up” as you so nastily put it.
[lprent: See my other comments on your transcription. ]
” 1#. The standard audio did not capture Shearer’s comment. (But I a sure that an enhanced audio would reveal it.)”
Were you in the hall Jenny? Whereabouts? Who was Shearer calling out to?
“2# I have already provided the video/audio link at the beginning of this debate. But for you I will do it again. Here at 1:15:00.”
Just so its clear, that’s the live stream audio where you can’t hear what is being shouted, nor see who is shouting, right?
“3# The confirming statements from others who heard Shearer’s shouted comment or admitted that it occurred are all over the thread.”
Links please. The only credible person I’ve seen who agrees with you is Jayman. Others that were there or saw the TV3 vid disagree.
“Now, how about you providing a link where I have ever “made shit up” as you so nastily put it.”
No citation needed because it’s been witnessed by many regular standardistas over a great period of time.
[lprent: Deal with finding evidence for the existing claims you have made rather than attacking people saying your claims lack credibility. And do *not* try to twist my words again when it is clear you have not read the whole of my post. ]
[lprent: Deal with finding evidence for the existing claims you have made rather than attacking people saying your claims lack credibility. ]
Right, so you didn’t provide the link because you weren’t actually transcribing the audio but we’re meant to take your word for it even though others can’t verify it.
That would be you making shit up right there, wouldn’t it?
Lynn, the ‘shouting’ I thought was being referred to happens after Cunliffe finishes speaking and the Green person is starting. Someone from the general direction of Shearer appears to call out something – you can see a few people in teh audience turn and look that way. What is shouted is not audible on the Live Stream video. I originally assumed this was what Jenny was referring to, but her inabiliy to produce a coherent narrative (eg was she in the hall or just saw something on TV) renders this whole conversation pretty meaningless.
That was when I’d thought she meant as well, during the clapping. But there isn’t anything where you can distinguish the words then on the soundtrack.
However in the right audio track at the time of the clapping, the same person I heard during Cunliffes speech shouts something that I couldn’t make out over the clapping. Pretty damn sure it was the same dickhead that I’d identified interjecting earlier.
Certainly didn’t have the tonal aspects that Shearer has when he is raising his voice (eg like the protest on Saturday) which is quite distinctive.
But as you say Jenny is so damn vague about the whole thing that I’m getting a wee bit annoyed.
The fact of the matter is that Jenny’s comment was one that was cherry-picked by TV3 in order to frame the meeting with a political slant that it did not aim to have.
I doubt that Jenny’s comment was correct, yet making a long inquisition over it, when it is only one comment, that was cherry-picked out of a conversation that indicated there was a lot of disagreement over it, is shifting the focus off the unprofessional and dishonest behaviour of TV3 and its reporter and onto one person making one comment here.
I believe it is worth developing less susceptibility to political divisionary and diversionary tactics.
I’d be seriously interested to know how you think we in the comments section could develop less susceptibility to Jenny’s divisionary tactics (given they’ve gone on a long time and covered much ground).
Are you being facetious?
I am referring to TV3 and political interests’ divisionary and diversionary tactics, not Jenny’s; Jenny cannot be held responsible for TV3’s choice to focus on her one comment, out of a conversation where ALL other comments were disagreeing with her.
I was truly shocked that TV3 would do this. NZ TV journalists also did much the same in November last year; using conversations here to weave their own narrative. It is this action that should be focussed on and condemned; not those whose comments are being twisted for political gain.
The state of journalism in NZ is appalling; this is the problem that this post is identifying.
Agreed, BL. However, Jenny has failed to accept that and has proceeded to defend her original (mis)judgement. Instead of being critical of how TV3 has used her comment for their own ends, she has focused far more on attacking Shearer and anyone critical of her initial judgement.
Lynn’s thorough analysis shows up her shonkey judgement/s.
No, BL, I wasn’t being facetious. I thought the critique of what TV3 did, and the coining of the terms jonolism was well handled here. Beyond that, I tend to think that it’s up to the people who run ts to take issue with TV3 outside of here if they felt inclined to do so. Lynn handles it in his way, which is to give them a thrashing in a dedicated post. I guess any member of the public could make a complaint to TV3 and/or the Broadcasting Standards Authority. What else where you thinking?
However, Jenny is a problem of the commenting section. She routinely sows dissent amongst people who should be her allies, and I think this is an entirely appropriate time to point that out.
Let me be clear too, I don’t hold Jenny responsible for TV3’s actions. But I do hold her responsible for her poison pen and believe that she should have the ramifications of when she uses it pointed out to her as often as is possible.
I also note what Lynn said below, and for me too the long discussion about what Jenny has done is as much about making sure people don’t say shit they can’t back up, when teh shit they say is so important. Or rather if they do say important shit they can’t back up, they get called on it.
p.s. if your comment was an attempt at humour…it was quite a good one 🙂
I’d fully agree. And that was what the post was about.
However if you have Jenny asserting that she had absolutely heard it, and (finally) pointing to material that could verify or refute it. She does this despite the disclaimer by Shearer’s office and my own observation. So I’ll look at if for no other reason than to set the standard of validity of assertions required in the future.
You can see quite a lot of similar past events showing in the culture of behaviour here now.
Thanks to you (and others) for providing this forum.
I think your job here may be going to become rather tricky over the next few months….. I wish you all the strength and patience you could hope for….and more!
This will be the third election since the site started. I merely start escalating the length of times for repeat bans as an inducement for people to find their better behaviour in the election year. It is amazing how some of the inter-election bickering diminishes as the ban length steadily rises towards “after the next election”.
I try to go for the whole subtle approach.. 😈
Lynn. Your approach is not subtle at all. You are obviously working up to a full ban. I have told you before I will not be intimidated. Disgrace yourself if you want.
Actually I am not. What I am doing is defining on my post what the topic is. Since the post is about some media taking an unsubstantiated and unsupported and vague question (because that was what your original comment was) and stating it as news. Examining the claim is part of this. Attacking people for questioning the validity is not.
“Pretty damn sure it was the same dickhead that I’d identified interjecting earlier.”
Sounded like that to me too, although not sure the direction was the same.
You have a lot of patience.
It was the roughly same direction from the mic as the previous interjections (would need more audio channels to be sure).
One of the “benefits” of living with a film producer is that they are aghast at even the suggestion that one should possess inadequate video or audio gear.
Yeah, but not for this stuff. I was testing updated and restructured build code last night with some very long run times. So I was watching the video between run starts. But that was nothing… Lyn (like all film producers) makes the editors and herself go over and over and over the same scenes innumerable times hunting for and fixing effects that I could neither see nor hear. Coding is much more fun.