- Date published:
10:41 am, January 31st, 2014 - 168 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, labour, newspapers, spin - Tags: media bias, nz herald, Recess monkey, Sam Durbin
Media bias has been a topic of conversation for lefties this week. TV3 has shown, shall we say, questionable judgment, Karol has set out the divergence of treatment shown by the Herald to National’s and Labour’s state of the Nation speeches and the media in general have jumped on National’s framing of issues. Sam Durbin at Recess Monkey documents recent events well in this post.
He concludes as follows:
Now I’m not going to defend some of the poor communications from Labour, particularly around the Facebook stuff, and they certainly have provided the avenue for attack through some carelessness in crafting. Let me be frank – Labour absolutely must get its act together immediately.
But the fact remains that key members of the media have been shirking their responsibilities to report in an unbiased fashion. The claims that Cunliffe has mislead New Zealand are a John Key media line that they are running for him, without even questioning that they could perhaps have got it wrong. Gower’s story that really started it all off is nothing more than a delusional flight of fancy, accusing Cunliffe and Labour of deliberately doing something terrible, and then chewing them out on every platform he can stick his face, voice, and words onto. Perhaps he’s the malicious one here? Did he deliberately forget to read the section labelled QUESTIONS in the material?
Bad press comes in a number of forms. It can occur through the use of framing of issues offered by your opponent, the repetition of statements as fact when they are not, and down to something as simple as the choice of photographs for articles.
A comment from Olwyn yesterday rasied the issue of the choice of photographs by the New Zealand Herald. Because the photos of David Cunliffe that they have used recently make him look, well, a bit naff.
Exhibit A is this photo from Monday’s state of the nation speech which has been used in at least two articles.
It makes David look somewhat grumpy whereas I was there and he looked really happy all afternoon. In fact this is my impression of him from that day:
Exhibit B is this photo:
You would think that with all of the Herald’s resources they would have slightly better photos of David.
It is not that hard to get really awful photos of someone. With the benefit of a digital camera multiple shots can be taken quickly. You just set it to take photos continuously and no doubt one of them will look really bad.
As an example of this following is a photo I took of John Key. It was by far the worst one that I took so of course I released it.
This behaviour can be expected of me. After all I am a partisan hack that thinks that Key and National are causing irreparable damage to my country and that they need to be removed from office.
But the Herald is part of the main stream media and is meant to report on the news, not distort it. It is not meant to take political positions, just inform the population what is happening.
Of course the alternative is to bypass the media and talk to people face to face to engage them in politics. This may represent the best chance that Labour and the Greens have of succeeding this year.
Exhibit B isn’t all that bad
C isn’t great, however by itself without the influence of A I think it would be acceptable.
It’s an appalling photograph from a technical standpoint. Bad lighting, contrast etc.
Any decent editor would recognise this, and the decision to use it reinforces the article’s argument.
the herald offered six weeks free papers i told them to f -off why would i want read there lies boycott MSM
you might learn some grammar if you read a bit more?
Well, you may be tight, but you’re certainly not right about correct standards of written English. For starters, there is nothing grammatically wrong with dave’s comment. It lacks standard punctuation and there’s a misused word (based on a confusion between “their” and “there”), but the flow of meaning is perfectly fine and the syntax is reasonable.
Perhaps you should look a bit more closely at your own errors:
1) You have punctuated a statement as a question. If you wanted it to be read as a hypothetical you needed a conjunction like “perhaps” then the question mark could be justified.
2) How about starting a sentence with a capital letter? (Especially a sentence criticising someone else’s writing mechanics.)
I wouldn’t usually comment on these technicalities, but your choice to do so opens you up to a bit of targeted feedback.
…. as Soimun Brudjiss woud say …. “there are some ‘learnings’ in that for Tighty Righty”
Unflattering Photographs of Cunliffe:
Yep, the Dom Post did the same thing to Cunliffe during Labour’s leadership Primaries. Consistently used a highly unflattering shot of Cunliffe – not only did he look highly confused but the shot was also quite distorted, like an extreme close-up taken with an ultra-wide-angled (or fisheye) lens. Very odd indeed. As you say, Mickey, these sorts of photos are not just chosen by accident.
It’s always intriguing to see just how utterly brazen the MSM can be in its partisanship. Bless their little cotton socks.
That’s how the media operates.
They’ve been like it for years, Key spent most of last year defending himself from media stories and exaggeration.
It’s Cunliffes turn now, be interesting to see how he handles it because I get the feeling the media can smell blood and where there’s blood there’s stories.
Good opportunity to see how Cunliffe operates under pressure, see if he’s got the goods or not.
It is the ” shark ” like behaviour of the media that is being questioned, not how DC responds to it
you mean how they pick up on discrepancies between whats said and what is actually the truth? yeah, what a pack of dicks for not just publishing labours press release as labour wanted it published.
like they do for National you mean TR?
National never release detail and are challenged to provide any when asked. The offending reporter or network (cf. the National Party’s de-facto boycott of National Radio) is then cut off from all access to ministers and are told they will have to go through Matthew Hooton.
well oiled machine, and it seems to work well for them
I saw that first photo of Cunliffe and couldn’t really believe that they’d used it. Your photo of key is a classic – nice one.
Seems the phoney war is over and the gnats and their supporters have started seriously toward their objective – make or break time now because not too many more chances before voting day, whenever it is.
They’re not even trying to hide it anymore. It’s pretty obvious that most of the media people (who are after all “rich pricks”) would prefer a John Key led government. To that end they will avoid any serious political discussion unless it is to the detriment of the opposition, and will spend most of their time trolling and talking about things like Metiria Turei’s clothes.
It’s also pretty obvious that they can and will get their way. It’s why I stopped thinking freedom of the press was worth anything a while back.
it’s not possible to have serious political discussion when one side is managing the economy like a boss and one side is throwing round bribes that don’t actually exist.
The press is free to report how they see things. that they see national as being on message and in control and labour / greens way off message and out of control is more labour / greens fault, rather than the media.
the previous Labour Government managed the economy far better without having to sell the family silver (in fact, they bought some of it back) so you have no ground to stand on when it comes to National “managing the economy”.
The press isn’t free, it’s bought and paid for, this is made crystal clear by how they parrot Key’s every brainfart as if it’s gospel. They see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear. Much like you, TightyRighty.
Who polices the police?
Who ensures that the MSM are fair and unbiased?
It’s a rigged game and the MSM in NZ are untouchable.
A change of Government must introduce a quality, independent, non commercial Public Broadcaster. If we can’t afford that we can’t afford a Democracy. Sad and deeply concerning …
The Herald and TV3 partisan behaviour in particular has gone so far from being acceptable that I think it is time a group of people tested it in court – or somewhere. There are limits to the decimation of democratic governance in a country like NZ, and when the MSM so often deliberately and provocatively aid and abet in that decimation then surely they should be able to be brought to account.
I know almost nothing about the legal system, but there must be some way to counteract their abominable partisan behaviour.
edit: and its no use relying on the BSA because I know from personal experience they have become a bunch of toothless tigers peopled mainly by ex-Nat Party supporters.
There’s no way. Sorry.
It’s not as worrying as it used to be. Broadcasting is less important these days, since people prefer “narrowcasting” available to them via the internet. After all, when was the last time you learned about something you were interested in from the TV news first?
Many, including more and more younger people, get their news either direct from the source (e.g. someone’s Twitter feed) or from their social contacts (e.g. Twitter, Facebook).
I guess a few people do get their opinions from sources like the Herald, but I have no idea why they would. Bob Jones is about the only regular columnist who isn’t thick.
The good thing about the internet is that you aren’t subject to the rules of media politeness, so it’s possible to openly and honestly refer to conservatives as the disgusting authoritarians they actually are.
It can’t be true that the vast majority don’t listen to radio otherwise they wouldn’t be able to stay in business. They can’t all go to Joyce for subsidies. Do young people actually care about the facts of a matter, or is it the general story that’s of interest and then what emotions are building around it? People who check with what their friends know don’t seem to be interested in the facts, just what is the socially acceptable response at the time.
Perhaps someone who is in touch with the latest feelings on anything could give us an update with what the word is on the apps or whatever?
The old labour movement never expected the Tory papers to be sympathetic.
That’s why they created their own mass media outlets, e.g. The Standard 1.0, and in the USA, Appeal to Reason.
Absolutely, CV. Always known as “The Tory Press” and for very good reason.
The morning papers (THE HERALD, THE DOMINION, THE PRESS, THE ODT) were all staunch supporters of Massey’s very Right-Wing Reform Party (indeed, THE DOMINION was generally considered the semi-official mouthpiece of the Party), while the evening papers (AUCK STAR, EVENING POST, CHCH STAR etc) were Liberal supporters. All became Tory aligned after the 1936 formation of the Nats (albeit with the evening papers remaining a little more even-handed).
And let’s not forget the SOUTHERN CROSS – the Wellington equivalent of THE STANDARD. Published c1946-1954.
I love it how the media go on about Cunliffe but the truth is it is promoting our policy about new born babies yay. It is the longest the policy has been airing while we dont hear about nationals policy anymore and its all labour you hear in the news be it negative. The people are not as stupid as the media may like to think.
Keys pathetic responses make Key look a lot worse his demeanor was the look of worry while Cunliffe fronted and admitted his muck ups and looked genuine.
While Keys integrity has been damaged permanently .
After Key has been caught lying so many times and refusing to admit anything.
Its refreshing to see Cunliffe front .
– Really? Is that what its called?
The Herald in particular is filth, and people need reminding of this now and then. If they ever ran a flattering pic of Helen Clark in nine years I missed it. Fairfax is filth too, all msm outlets are dirty filthy tory supporters when their track records over time are examined. http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=48735398-FC90-8334-7A51-09FCFDB95B7D
They are staffed by up themselves yet under pressure cub reporters and aging boofheads, print versions subbed and typeset sometimes offshore, edited by the invisible man and part of the capitalist superstructure. The few individual exceptions such as Campbell Live are surely a most endangered species in election year with the “the Three Tory Amigos” Espiner, Hosking and Henry ensconced at radio and TV.
The way to beat these pricks is not to buy the sausage wrappers, dry retch entering the pay zone or provide clicks or eyeballs to them apart from absolutely necessary research.
Politicians need to get out and about like Hone from Mana does and even the unloved here Winston. And use the internet.
David Cunliffe has https://www.facebook.com/david.cunliffe.labour which includes his ”I”m in” initiative which will be encouraging people that want the Key gang gone to sign up and do something at neighbourhood level. Labour and Greens need to do an Obama to get elected (and then stop and not do too much more Obama!)
There were lots of flattering shots of Helen Clark in the Herald during her time in office.
Most of them were in the period just before an election of course and were paid for.
That photo-shopped one that was in the Labour Party ad’s was so flattering that is was unrecognisable.
1. Boo hoo, the media run unflattering pictures of politicians all the time
2. Cunliffe, as the leader of the Labour party, now has to face the same scrutiny as John Key (and it looks like Cunliffes not handling the pressure)
3. Cunliffe being caught out making a “policy error” again (yeah I’m suggesting it wasn’t an error) isn’t the fault of the media or John Key its simply the Labour party doing what the Labour party does best and thats being sloppy and amateurish
4. If the Labour party want better coverage and don’t want to look like they’re trying to undermine Cunliffe (probably the next best thing Labour is good at is underming its leaders) then all they need to do is stop blaming others for their own misfortunes and start acting professional
But then they woud require some honest self-reflection so don’t hold your breath
You’re suggesting it was a deliberate lie, and they didn’t expect the army of keyboard warriors to jump all over it? I’m suggesting that that’s a fucking stupid suggestion.
When did he do that? Here he is taking responsibility:
I’m suggesting the Labour party were hoping to sneak it through without anyone noticing, don’t underestimate the Labour partys talent for shooting itself in the foot.
And as to taking responsibility thats more to do with the Left in general blaming everything and everyone under the sun rather then looking at themselves.
For example its: the MSMs fault, John Keys popularity, big business, Whaleoil, peoples greed etc etc as to why Cunliffes as popular as Shearer or why Labours stagnating or why Nationals still popular
Yes, that’s the stupid bit.
I agree, you’d think Labour would have learned by now but apparently not
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Were I forced to choose the more intelligent of you and David Cunliffe, I’m afraid you’d come, shall we say, not first.
I agree Cunliffes a smart guy but I suspect those around him are as thick as two short planks…or most likely haven’t got their heads around new technology
What I mean is the days where a politician could say something and it’d go out in the newspaper and (maybe if you’re lucky) in the nightly news and people (even if they knew it was wrong) couldn’t do much more then write a letter to the editor and by then people have moved on
Mass communication is now a two way street, the left think its like the old days but now a politician says something wrong theres a lot of people (with blogs) willing to tell everyone about it
i love this deep insight of yours into how the left thinks chris – its like your a mind reader or something
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about Chris. Tell me why don’t you think that knowing what you are talking about is important?
So why have Labour been performing so poorly, apart from general incompetence, under Goff then Shearer and now Cunliffe?
The last couple of years whenever National got into a bit of trouble all you’d have to do is wait for someone from Labour to open their mouths take the heat off.
Why is that and why has it happened again for Cunliffes big speech?
Incompetence or arrogance?
so you say it was an honest mistake and we all have to bow down and just accept it? we can’t be at all sceptical of the labour leaders version of what happened? is cunliffe jesus or something now?
The worst thing isn’t that the policy is different from how is was delivered. it’s that so many of the cheerleaders (MS?) have spent so long denigrating everybody who questioned that it may have been a deliberate misinterpretation, when they are so close to the truth that it looks orchestrated.
“so you say it was an honest mistake and we all have to bow down and just accept it?”
The media themselves makes mistakes similar to the one made in the speech, all the time. Frequently you see short apology notices in papers or in bulletins where they have to correct a previous factual error.
Are you implying that every time the media makes a mistake of fact, they’re deliberately trying to deceive the public?
How about when National gets their facts wrong (which they frequently do, since a lot of them are made up on the spot). Heck, when National gets it’s facts wrong, we (the public) don’t even get notified about it, most of the time . The media doesn’t even bother to fact check most of them…
The problem isn’t so much that Labour isn’t willing to admit to the mistake (which they did right from the start). It’s that the whole thing is being turned into a conspiracy theory about how Labour was deliberately trying to deceive the public, even though the correct information was easily accessible on the Labour Party website.
Yes, I do believe that sometimes the media make deliberate mistakes in reporting knowing that they only have to publish a 3rd to last page retraction.
When has national got it’s facts wrong? economy is looking pretty good to me right now. unemployment is down, wages are up, rates are holding.
Take a break National government, give yourself a big pat on the back and have a beer. you’ve earned it.
“When has national got it’s facts wrong?”
How about the scores of times I’ve heard senior National politicians claiming that they have rescued the economy from the disaster of the previous (Labour) administration?
Labour were very careful economic guardians. they ran surpluses and paid down debt (which has ballooned again under this government). And yes, I know there has been a GFC and yes, I know about the costs caused by the Christchurch earthquakes. However, I don’t see how the government can step away from responsibility for debt while also taking credit for the supposed ‘upturn’ caused largely by the beginnings of the ChCh rebuild. If the earthquakes weren’t their fault (and they weren’t), well hey the rebuild is a response to that huge series of events, not a construction of this government.
And let’s not forget that these guys were determined to cut taxes for the reasonably well-heeled, even in the face of the GFC. So much for being our economic saviours!
I’m saying they’d have to be really fucking stupid to think they were going to get away with it, and you’d have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that they were really that fucking stupid. Clear?
So Cunliffe and his office, speech writer et al, are really fucking stupid. cool. about time someone admitted it.
So…it’s a grand conspiracy that the fact of not being able to receive Paid Parental Leave and the Best Start payment at the same time wasn’t mentioned in a 40 minute speech, even though it’s clearly mentioned in the full policy outline located on the Labour Party website?
Though I don’t see how anyone can possibly outline every single detail about a policy in a 40 minute speech (where only about 5 minutes was dedicated to the policy), in hindsight, it would have been better if it was mentioned. Having said that, I can almost guarantee that the media would find something else to pick on…
Even so, I can’t see any reason why those kinds of questions haven’t been raised of the National Party education policy. Aspects such as how people for the positions will be selected are very vague (probably intentionally so), and I’m certain it would be in the public interest to know these sorts of things before they cast their votes.
when i listen to someone trying to sell me something on the spot, with no smartphone, i tend to believe what they are saying. then if they get caught out because of fine print, i cancel. there is a law against misrepresentation of the deal if the fine print isn’t made explicitly clear on the spot.
Well then, you’re fully within your rights to not vote Labour this election.
me and the other 70% of the voting population. but if they keep this up, 79% again. feeling lonely?
How apt that the photographer’s name is Phibbs for this work.
Exhibit A. They couldn’t get a more unflattering photo if they tried. The happy looking smiling people on the left of the photo are at complete odds with Cunliffe’s image who snapped in a fraction of moment, looks like he going to deck that guy he is facing. So even then they are failing to capture the true mood of the occasion.
Given that about a third of the photo is taken up with a close up of a part of a man’s face and his neck, and looks like a really bad drunk party shot just, instead of a professionally shot “candid” press photo shows HOW desperate the Herald were to get the single most unflattering photo they could.
Looks like a deliberate attempt to set an anti Cunliffe, anti Labour Party agenda and that’s without the “commentary”!
And Gower and co over at TV3 I reallllly hope you’re getting all this down, the fact that folks know what you’re up to – you’re looking like desparado’s yourselves.
Gower has a face on him like a half chewed mintie rolled in dog hair, which adds to the desperado look. Not that I am any oil painting, but luckily do not have to be “my masters voice” in front of viewers of his crappola.
“Gower has a face on him like a half chewed mintie rolled in dog hair,”
That’s gold. You’ve bettered Dai Henwood’s observation that Gower looked like a teenage undertaker.
Good description. He has a face made for radio and a voice made for mime.
Gower the News Goblin aka Paddy the Handsome
‘News Goblin’ – might have to make use of that one 🙂
It’s quite true. Luckily, David Cunliffe seems to be that generational thing, a sincere leader. Just try to make sure as many people as possible see some of his speeches or better yet meet him in person.
Key’s dishonesty turns people away. Let people see Cunliffe in action and they’ll savage these wretched media hacks…
Time for the Greens and Labour to challenge the media face to face.
I agree, Cunliffe and Norman should definitely challenge the media over this
Cunliffe needs to call the media out on this, especially Patrick Gower.
He needs to show him who’s boss.
Yeah if Cunliffe doesn’t do this then he must be chicken
lol you two are funny
Cunliffe doesn’t need to call the media out – it is their professionalism that’s on the line, not his. It’s like Key’s brain fades – You can’t answer the public’s questions? really? – every time he does it soft supporters leave him in droves.
But it’s surprising the Herald hasn’t sacked their political reporters – they are rubbish. Cunliffe is a genuinely good speaker, much better than Key, and with fresh policy – you wouldn’t think so reading Armstrong et al. Armstrong had to backpeddle furiously after the conference speech, which he did not report – probably the best political speech of 2013.
where are these “droves” you talk about?
Watch this film and come back and talk afterwards about the impartiality of the corporate media.
if john key was to attack the media it would be an attack on the freedom of speech. when cunliffe does we would have a valid point as it’s biased against him.
claims of bias against “mainstream”, lets not forget that term either, media are largely unfounded. individual publications, sure. The ABC, left like useless whinger. the spectator, slightly to the right of George Bush. the whole “mainstream” media? you are fucking retarded.
the reason it’s mainstream is because the masses to choose to watch it and make their choices on the information provided as a result of their choice to watch it. that the mainstream media reflects the values of it’s viewers is not the media’s fault. if the masses didn’t like it they wouldn’t watch it. therefore mainstream is representative of population due to it’s extremely large sample size, therefore mainstream hates labour.
Not the media’s fault. not the populations fault. labours fault.
Simple question tr, do you accept the corporate media is biased in favour of the National party above either the Greens or Labour?
Ther Herald fawn over Key all the time. Does he pay them? The bias is blatant and sickening.
Still, Key’s days are numbered, the public are finally seeing through him it seems.
Because Keys popularity as PM is falling (oops its not) and Cunliffes is rising? (has he overtaken Shearer yet?) or is it because Nationals numbers are dropping (oops a daisey they ain’t) and Labours are rising (well you get the picture by now)
Funny you should say that, the Labour -Green group is overhauling the National-XXXXX group
But of course , we then have the idea that the ‘largest’ party should govern because even though they havent won the election, is the latest version of divine rule
Helen was still popular when Labour got voted out. Key’s problem (apart from the fact he is an extremely poor public speaker) is Brownlee, Bennet, Collins, Parata, Smith, Ryall, Finlayson, McCully, English etc etc etc
oh and Dunne, Banks..
Poor public speaker?? Just ask John Campbell about that
Interview != public speech…
Also, if you define being “good at an interview” as bypassing the questions and talking over the interviewer, then he’s great at it…
..and don’t forget chem-trails col…
If you seriously don’t think the corporate media is not inherently biased, then you need to educate yourself.
However, I think you know the fundamentals of this already and just spinning for the 1%.
If they’re paying you, you are contemptible.
If they’re not paying you, you are quite deluded.
Or of course you are one of the 1%.
He doesnt pay them. But he has some very nasty dogs in his media office that will bite if they see something they dont like.
As we have seen with the ‘reducing wages’ interview some time back, if they dont get the bad press changed by the editors they will get the company board of directors to intervene.
Just note that on nearly every page of the Herald there in bold print
Then on radio every day we have “radio NZ’ ” NATIONAL” Its too clever to be coincidental ,don’t you think??.
What is becoming patently clear is that the right-wing are unable to criticise the substance of the policies that Labour have proposed because these policies are good – and are having to resort to pernickety criticisms, fabrications and bad photos.
It is truly shocking to see our mainstream media doing the Nat party electioneering for them.
Just have to remind ourselves of the weakness of the right-wing. They are clueless about how to act in the interests of the greatest number of people and playing below-the-belt tactics is the only way they get into power.
Sadly these tactics are based on knowledge on how to influence people against their best interests and hopefully there are people in the appropriate circles (media & political) looking into the connections between the media/Gower & others and the Nat party pay roll.
We need a whistle-blower here & if anyone is considering it – please remind yourself of how this behaviour of the media is degenerating our democracy.
it’ll get dirtier as the year progresses.
But the dirtier it gets it means the more desperate they’re becoming
I agree Labour love the dirt but hopefully they won’t go as far as they’ve done in previous elections
No Labour doesn’t like ‘the dirt’ – they get others to do it for them, for example like that time in 2005 when they made secret agreements with that Christian group to write up large adverts condemning the Government of the day – thereby working their way around the election funding rules – and how they feed dirt to dirty blogsites that write with no scruples – in this way they get their dirty messages across to the public without having the dirt emanating from them connected directly with their ‘brand’
No, wait! Hang about! – It is the National Party that did those things not Labour!
+1 McFlock – The dirtier it gets it means the more desperate National are becoming
Well theres this:
Maybe labours policies arn’t good and how they’ve been announced has been a dogs breakfast
The way that Best Start has been formulated is that it allows those on no & low income to get a relatively large boost to their flailing incomes – $ 60 for those in the upper bracket may well be considered a pittance – or it may encourage a longer time off work for one of the parents – which is a good thing for the baby.
Some here on the Standard have mentioned that those on higher income don’t need to accept the payment – I am unclear whether this is true or not.
I agree that it could have been targeted more specifically toward those on lower household incomes however the benefit of targeting those from $150 000 household income and under is that it fairly well lumps 95% of New Zealanders in the same category – as they should be – and counteracts the divisive politics of the right of picking sections of us off and pitting us against one another – but then I guess the right-wing have realised that already and that is why they are spewing.
take $60pw in exchange for cancelling the family tax credit of $150pw. labour giveth, labour taketh away. BS, that’s a targeted poverty policy all right
From what I can tell, the Parental tax credit is an alternative for Paid Parental Leave currently. You cannot receive both at once. It’s also not available to anyone on many benefits.
People can only claim it for up to 8 weeks after the birth of the child too, compared to the 1-3 years of the Best Start payment.
So, if you’re in the rare case of it making sense to claim this tax credit (ie not on paid parental leave, not on a benefit, earning less than $20,000 per year), then you’ll only receive up to $1200. Keep in mind that Parental tax credit is means-tested, so $150 is the maximum rather than a fixed amount.
Compare that to the Best Start payment fixed at $60 per week, which is available to anyone earning less than $150,000, which gives $3120 all up for those not receiving parental leave for the first year (and, as said above, anyone who may have received the Parental tax credit would not be receiving parental leave).
In addition, anyone who was likely to want to receive the tax credit rather than leave would probably be earning well under $50,000, and thus would receive the extra $6240 for the next two years. Overall, that’s $9360 compared to $1200, which is nearly 8 times as much.
Plus, it doesn’t have the added administrative and bureaucratic costs of means testing, as the Parental tax credit does…
Can I ask, what is TV1 news like these days? I boycotted them about ten years ago but it looks like I might be boycotting TV3 some day soon, apart from Campbell Live. Not that either of them are necessary as a source of “News”, it’s more like a shameful case of 6pm junk news addiction that I suffer.
If this was on offer however:
“A change of Government must introduce a quality, independent, non commercial Public Broadcaster. If we can’t afford that we can’t afford a Democracy. Sad and deeply concerning …”
You’re so right phil
My opinion is that TV One news are more supportive of the left – or at the very least more ‘balanced’. They are not perfect, however TV3 news appears to be very captured by the right. I do not watch this news for information – only occasionally switch over to see the framing they are choosing to convey to the public.
It is sad because TV3 cover New Zealand news stories in more detail than TV1 – however their bias is right-wing and they compromise information for that bias.
I recall a Pike River Mine item on TV3 news – where John Key was letting the miners down severely – they did a series of quick shots of John Key – one of which where he was holding a baby and showing it a toy of some type. This picture was flashed on the screen quickly and had no relevance to the information being discussed – considering Key was reneging on some level of support that he’d promised and that it was a very negative piece of news – I consider the choice to show this shot as being motivated to connect Key with something good while bad news was being delivered – this approach targets peoples’ unconscious brains & has been proven to be effective at influencing people without their conscious knowing. You have to ask yourself what are news sources applying such techniques for?
Hi Blue Leopard. That is an interesting observation about the “positive Key image” inserted into the negative but true Key story re his abandonment of the Pike River Families. I don’t really recall Key ever being shown in a negative light on 3News.
I might experiment and watch 1News for a week and see if there is a difference in reporting the same story and how it is framed. I might also watch as new legislation comes up too. Soon we will have Bridge’s Victorian Era -Workhouse-Union Busting ERA amendments and Hone’s Feed The Kids bill which has already been delayed. Will be interesting to see how this come across on TV1 as opposed to TV3
I find comparing the framing between the two stations very interesting and I thoroughly recommend others doing it too – this activity has been made all the more easier with the TV1 plus and TV3 plus channels (playing the same programmes and hour later).
Would be interested in your impressions after doing that, Rosie [& anyone else].
It is subliminal indoctrination. Not helped by the amount of times the word *key* is used in everday communications.
…yeah that point you make about the common nature of the word ‘key’ is a good point and another bloody annoying factor in all this.
Mark Sainsbury was refrreshingly unbiased. Really miss him. TV One News is a bit light these days, too many presenters.
Campbell live as I have said before Tv3’s hard left infomercial. And you don’t like media that is biased. You must be f#%king joking
And as for the flag change, why has Key put that on the table now? It hasn;t been mentioned for some time. What a power monger he is, an opportunist to the last.
It is being said in Wellington that the Flag change proposal was to be put to the next Labour Party Conference remit, but a HO staff member leaked it to the media, and National, and Key was asked the question by the reporter,to which he already knew the answer.
The Listener had a cover story about changing the flag for their first issue of this year, IIRC. Which was before Key mentioned anything. This year, anyway.
Back in September when he had the junket trip to see the Queen, he was quoted as saying he loved the royals and didn’t want to become a republic, “but that wouldn’t stop me from changing the flag”.
So, the only place this has been a topic of discussion is The Standard and maybe some other random left-wing blogs.
It’s a pointless argument because the Left always thinks the media is right-leaning and the Right always think the media is left-leaning. Meaning, both sides are as stupid as each other on this one and only raise it because their dude (or dudette) hasn’t had a good week and throw a tanty.
Seriously, get back to substantive stuff and how in future not to screw up a major policy release.
How information is conveyed is extremely substantive stuff. How accurately and non-biased information is conveyed to the general public will affect how well a democracy will function.
The thing is the media in New Zealand is staffed by kids who think they are cute. They have no integrity and dont know anything about anything.
A prime example is the Grammys. There was never a mention of who won any other award except the one the kiwi sheila was in.
Solipsistic narcissistic head up your ass kiss the bosses arse style journalism.
All pictures of politicians in all media outlets should be replaced with Ron Mark flipping the bird in Parliament.
Happens on radio too, last election year, constantly used phrases like “commanding lead for National” ” desperate Labour” sort of subliminal messages……yes, I know sounds paranoid, except it worked!
Would only sound paranoid if we all hadn’t heard it
RadioNZ news this afternoon quoted Key…
“Ms Turei said their behaviour amounts to bullying, but Prime Minister John Key said that’s not the case.
“Go back and play the file footage and see who says the hardest, often nastiest comments. Almost always comes from the Greens – they go really hard.”
This is crap, the Greens are quite polite, when was the last time they called other politicians ‘devil beasts” or ‘Taliban’?
What pisses me off is that journalists let Key away with made up shit like this without challenging him. It might be laziness, but it comes across as bias.
An example of bias/spin is when the first headline is “Key says” ………”Cunliffe”.
The next is. “Cunliff denies”.
A variation on the “when did you stop beating your wife”, gambit.
When a newspaper wants to insinuate something and stay on the right side of the defamation laws, the headline is “(so and so) denies”.
Dear Turei, boo fucking hoo. Harden up princess, you’re in Parliament – not playing tiddlywinks (Andre).
Just think, in a few months you’ll be able to say Harden up princess, you’re in Government
Metiria drew attention to ongoing racism coming from NAct. She didn’t cry. She is hard enough. A weak, soft woman would ignore it.
Meh, a panicky playing of the race card IMHO. If this was a coded racist attack on Turei for being Maori, then every comment about John Key being a rich banker is coded antisemitism.
Your opinion is not humble, nor does it have any validity. Key is a self-confessed admirer of Muldoon, a multi-millionaire who made his cash getting inflated bonuses for dubious dealings for an overseas (now defunct) corporation, and proud of his nickname; the Smiling Assassin (bestowed for his skill at firing employees).
The sooner we kick that sociopathic manipulator back to Hawaii the better for what remains of the country.
Pasupial, your references to Key’s wealth (greed) and having worked overseas (allegiance to foreign interests) are quite clearly antisemitic attacks.
HEY GUYS LOOK OVER HERE PASUPIAL HATES JEWS
HEY GUYS LOOK OVER HERE; SHG IS UTTERLY UNABLE TO COMPREHEND WRITTEN ENGLISH AND IS REDUCED TO SHOUTING IMBECILIC SLURS UNFOUNDED IN EVIDENCE.
I do regard John Key as a sociopathic crytofascist stooge of foreign interests. Yes, he is Jewish on his maternal (Lazar) side, although it doesn’t seem to be a large part of his self image. Really that is irrelevant – except possibly when it comes to his relationship as NZ PM with the state of Israel.
“your references to Key’s wealth (greed) and having worked overseas (allegiance to foreign interests) are quite clearly antisemitic attacks.”
Hey SHG, why do you automatically associate greed with jewishness?
Bit weird mate.
Key is a Christian and an atheist. He said so himself.
and his mother is jewish, which makes him jewish. practicing or not.
It makes him Yiddish .However I understand most Jewish people disown him..
It makes him Yiddish
Spoken with such ignorance. You must be an anti-semite.
When did you start hiding your hatred of the Jewish people and the state of Israel?
When did you stop beating your wife?
“and his mother is jewish”
Yes Tighty, he has also mentioned that he is jewish. And a christian, and an atheist, depending who he’s talking to at the time.
That was the point. Thanks for reinforcing it.
Yet another mangled comment from Key. One can be an Christian OR an atheist, but not both (or not at once, anyway). An oxymoron that makes him sound like..? (Hint; it’s not an ox.)
Tolley’s stupid remark is stupid. Who cares how she feels about being questioned on poverty by Turei? It’s their fucking job for Christ’s sake. Launching a personal attack is her way of showing weakness and irrelevance, like Simon Bridges attacking union reps while forestry workers die.
Key’s money is germane to most political and economic debates because of how he came by it.
I can see why Turei thinks Tolley’s remark is racist as well as inane, but you’re drawing a long bow to connect Key to that.
Nice spin. Evidence of Turei sounding at all “panicked”? Oh wait, she’s a woman stating a firm opinion, so it’s open season on the emotive labelling.
Photo A with a lovely short of some guy’s adam’s apple in profile, and David C in the background, is taken by Brett Phibbs. Two questions – Why would the Herald accept that? Did they pay him for it? Is his name really Phibbs? Don’t they have their own photographers any more? Wait that’s three.
I can see that the natives are getting restless and looking for someone to blame for the election loss later this year. The main suspects touted are John Key, The Herald, The media in general, Crosby Textor, the Stuff polls, The Royal visit and the gullibility of the public.
There is a complete failure to realise that there is absolutely no mood for change in the country. There might be with your mates but that is so myopic. People are happy and realise that everything is on song. The economy is booming, employment is rising, crime is down, benefit numbers are falling and more money is spent on education and health than at any time in history. John Key is really popular. Perhaps the most popular PM ever. He is trusted. The Cunliffe is not even trusted or wanted by his caucus for goodness sake. Not only that but a vote for Labour would mean a Labour/Greens government and the Greens would put all the last five years progress into reverse. The problem for Labour is that they will be saddled with all the nutty policies of the Greens.they are linked at the hip.
This is all great news for the lazy Grant Robertson who will inherit the leadership he craves by Christmas.
Follow the money. Cui bono. Who benefits from a Labour disaster? He who “polished up the handles so carefully that now he is the leader of the King’s navy.”
See what I mean about satire…………….?
I do. That’s top stuff.
So you don’t see any bias in the media.
You have left out Len Brown who is openly seen in front of the Labour Banner at Election time, declaring he was standing as an Independent.
It does not help the perceptive eye and will be used by NACTS later in the election without a doubt.
Oh what scintillating analysis. Just the utterly predictable and boring piece of old toss you always give us Phissearney.
Fitsiani. Wow! You got it all in. You can rest easy now. Sweet dreams.
Yep, I have been on about this very issue again and again, that the MSM are largely biased, do not deliver balanced, informative and well researched reports, and thus misinform the public. Investigative journalism is hard to find these days. Some of what the media do may be intentional, the rest may be due to journos also following the “herd instinct”, and not wanting to be different to their colleagues and mates.
Most media staff come from middle or upper middle class backgrounds, who follow this career out of some interest in having a “vibrant”, exciting work place. I suspect only few are experts on what they report on.
And of course, the ownership of the media is another issue that needs to be raised, as we have very poor, under-resourced and overly “commercial looking” public media (public broadcasting). Generally the media is dominated by private, even corporate owned media, with a strong commercial focus, and dependent on advertising, which is their bread and butter.
The latter fact compromises the freedom to report, although the media will mostly deny this being the case in public.
Thanks to mickysavage, Blue and others to write on all this, as the election later this year is in danger to be won again by the same forces, who won the last two general elections. It is certainly time to remind the media of their duties, and to rethink their conduct, as allowing themselves to be used by the well resourced political forces that run the show now, that is totally unacceptable.
Lastly, we need a re-establishment of truly balanced, well resourced, good quality and robust public broadcasting, with online services also, to restore the balance to the presently dominant private media players, that set the tone and direction for the rest to follow. The private media does not deserve to dominate the media-landscape, so the next Labour led and Green supported government will need to be taken to task on this, to create true competition for the private sector part of the whole media.
I expect to be well informed, not to be “infotained”, and thus treated like an immature or simple minded, consumerist idiot, which seems to be how too many in the media view the general public.
Labour communications, episode 68307: Cunliffe responds to criticism of his policy-launch fiasco.
“There are some collective learnings, and I am absolutely undertaking that we will be spot-on in future.”
There are some collective learnings, ahhhh the language of responsibility avoidance that comes so naturally to a Boston Consulting Group “strategy consultant”.
…. agreed Cunliffe would do himself a favour if he didn’t buy into corporate-BS-speak: i.e. “collective learnings” ffs!
The MSM essentially back Key so we would be naive to expect objective reporting. NZ as a fair and reasonable country is a myth. Power and money are talking loud and clear! The Key accusation of Cunliffe misleading NZ is a prime case. People remember the accusation not the defence. Finding the truth is not the purpose of the story. The success of this little bit of manipulation is a National triumph.
Don’t know if this has been mentioned, but there was also a VOD clip on TV3’s site titled “Key Dissects Labour’s Plans”. It Paul Henry interviewing John Key, and Labour’s plans or policy weren’t even mentioned. It was basically about Key’s holiday home in Hawaii and golf with the US president. This sort of thing happens quite often; I doubt that whoever writes the headlines has even watched the clip half the time. They probably just see key’s face, slap something vaguely political and extremely flattering to Key on it and move to the next clip. Is a headline as blatantly false as that a breach of standards of any kind?
Their media strategy guy is on the ball – unfortunately (for them neither) Key nor their hapless media frontmen could dissect anything more complicated than bacon and eggs to save themselves. Such hard work making stupid people look clever – and so frustrating.
Where you see the headline writer deliberately placing a title that is flattering to Key, I see a cynical bit of search-engine manipulation by some junior SEO nerd. “Key Dissects Labour’s Plans” is better click bait than “Key Plays Golf in Hawaii” this week. Gotta sell those eyeballs.
It amounts to the same thing, IMO. If they were impartially chasing hits and Key were too boring/too much of a dick, they’d just neglect to invite him onto the show. Besides, the fact that it is “Key Dissects Labour’s Plans” and not “Key flummoxed by Labour Policy” or “DotCom not trustworthy – Key” speaks volumes.
Having just read john armstrong’s column I actually feel quite sick. Is he for real? Is he on meds? Is he on a promise? I cannot believe that the herald publishes such negative one sided views of an obviously doddery old man who has forgotten how to think clearly and impartially. A load of regurgitation about Cunliffe’s Best Start policy (so last week) la la la and then ENTER JOHN KEY!!!! waving a flag or some such thing. How very Boy’s Own. I noticed about last November the little, feel good puff pieces about key leaching into the media. Yes I do mean leaching. It is now ramping up to disturbing proportions. How can it be stopped. Surely there is a way to get across to the real people of NZ what is truly happening. There are ALWAYS two sides to a debate but we are only being fed the slops of old retainers who need to be put out to pasture. Preferably during a drought. The main problem here is that key is thick enoughtt o actually believe implicitly every wonderful, positive thing that is written about him and therefore feeds his narcissistic ego driven personality.
Armstrong has some kind of hero worship thing going on for John Key. I do try to cut him a bit of slack on this, on the basis that if I were a newspaper columnist and PJ Harvey or Lemmy was the PM, I’d probably run no end of fawningly sycophantic pieces myself. On the other hand, at least PJ Harvey and Lemmy are actually cool…
I dont think armstrong writes the stuff that comes out under his name.
Lsas time I saw him he was being supported by a gaggle of females whose function was not altogether clear at that time but now I presume that they actually do the writing for him.
Put a little fear into them. In the foreign ownership deba te mention “foreign media ownership rules”
Further proof the corporate media is biased.
The Herald follows Key’s instructions to discuss the flag.
They are doing everything in their power to prevent a mature discussion about the state of New Zealand.
Their plans for the future…..TPP, privatisation of health and education and the sale of NZ to international corporations would not be something they’s want NZers to be talking about.
+1 Well said
Judging by right-wing comments on this thread & elsewhere on this matter it is becoming very clear why they are doing the distraction thing – the right-wing have no decent points to argue in a mature discussion.
Divisive, distracting, petty attacks is all they can do.
+1 Well said
Judging by right-wing comments on this thread & elsewhere, it is becoming very clear why they are doing the distraction thing – the right-wing have no decent points to argue in a mature discussion.
Divisive, distracting, petty attacks is all they can do – they have no reasoned or decent arguments for the policies and ideology that they blindly follow.
Of course the media are biased. Why did none of them challenge The Cunliffe ridiculous claim that 20% of New Zealand children do not have two pairs of shoes. A totally made up figure about 400 times the actual rate. So not a mistake just another attempt to be tricky and hope that no one questions.
…about 400 times the actual rate…
Why are Kidscan making such a big deal about shoes? Because they’re lying, or because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about?
The arguments that the right-wing are putting forward seem to be getting even more pathetic than usual…..
citation required for the Cunliffe crap
the latest NZ Living Standards Report which does ask if everyone in a household has two pairs of good or sturdy shoes. And 92% said they did, and only 5% said they did not because they couldn’t afford it.
Now 20% is four times greater than 5%, so that is some exaggeration
apology -I wrote 400 times but meant 400%.
Ah, you misspoke.
The Living Standards Survey was conducted in 2008. You may have heard that inequality has increased since then. You may also have heard predictions that this would be exactly the effect of legislation introduced by this government.
I’m sure you’d rather nitpick than do something about it, especially since, in doing so, you are merely toeing the party line like a good party member.
Paediatricians, on the other hand, live in nice houses and wear nice clothes, so god forbid they should lecture you about it, but they’ve been trying, tin ears.
Would the media be interested in:
“The United Nations has issued New Zealand with 155 recommendations to improve its human rights record” …..which is apparently up from 64 in 2009.
Seems to have vanished from front page already, despite being pretty important, if you care that is
WEL But,but, I heard just after that announcement that Bag Lady collins said that we are getting very good recommendations from overseas. Don’t know where from and no actual evidence to back that claim up. Must have been a relly from Nania. Delivered by a unicorn.
Armstrong: should just list him as the Herald National Party correspondent.
After that weird thing about Peters:
“There seems to be no mood in the electorate for a change of government. Without such a mood, Labour – which anyway does not look ready to govern – and the Greens – who do have their act together – have to manufacture one.
The trouble is the rhetoric simply does not wash.
Enter Key. He intends making things even harder for his opponents. Don’t be fooled into thinking his advocacy for a change of flag is some innocent diversion.
He is doing it on the back of a rapidly strengthening economy and much healthier levels of national confidence. Arguing for a new flag is an opportunity for him to display leadership and make people feel good about themselves and the country.
It is all about nationhood. It is all about patriotism. It is all about gathering more votes for National.”
Or just get Farrar to write the collumns directly and save the charade.
I can almost see them saluting as the new flag is hoisted up
When armstrong writes ‘key drapes a flag over his rival’ it sounds very much like a burial. Flags are draped over coffins. How come he didn’t get any comments on this piece of trash he wrote?
It’s been a shocking week for Labour and the media is reflecting that in the photo’s they use. Whoop de do.
If you want to talk about media bias perhaps you could start a discussion on the Herald constantly filling it’s opinion section with left wing drivel.
Obviously you think that the Herald should only be filled with right wing drivel.
Not at all.
I expect a range of views from all parts of the political spectrum.
I don’t believe the Herald provides this.
If you genuinely mean what you say – and I don’t for a moment believe that you do – then your views must be so far to the right that you may as well give up on the right-wing rag The Herald and instead subscribe to Kyle Chapman’s newsletter.
Its readers fill the opinion section with “left wing drivel”. Which is an indicator of the REAL mainstream view of New Zealand.
Quite different to the insanely corporatised extreme nutjob right-wing pro-rich anti-poor claptrap passed off as “journalism” and published by the Herald and its contemporaries.
Someone should take the time and investigate the Bias and influence of the present Government on media . Look at the fluff floating around at the moment with TVNZ – Key for a substantial period interviewed politely and nursed by Roydon Christie for months and months with no counter to the views of the master, at least now we have some balance with DC on a Tuesday morning, but you can see the different approach in the tones of the interviews and the questioning.
Make use the OIA act while we still can. It is very easy to “paint a picture” a certain way and easy to mislead the flock. The media as we all know have the power, they can make the innocent quilty, and vice versa. How many advisers (media) does Key rely on, they know how to manipulate and play on a situation to gain traction/support or to make it all go away… Just in the same way the comments under articles can be “cultured” to lead a certain bias and any opinions that do not go with the flow for example big business paper from Auckland it appears – just don’t post them even when they are not defamatory and just voice an opinion that does not gel with the flow of the articles bias. I heard from a very prominent NZ Journalist that they felt certain media had their own people commenting and leading the comment thread regards a high profile issue a few years back….. and if you look it fits… what is the reality is not really the actual…..the truth can be distorted and politics plays a sad part of that…Key and National will lead by “advantage” not by an having an honest equal battle field- just my observations and opinion….