Media milk Carter demotion for all it’s Worth

114 comments on “Media milk Carter demotion for all it’s Worth ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kriswgtn 1

   15 June 2010 at 7:57 pm

   It is obvious that TVNZ journos wont go after Key== cos if they did they would probably be sacked

   However Campbell’s similar actions dont excuse tv3’s coverage @ all

   I fired off a email to tv3 saying they had lost a viewer of tv3 news.and I had been a viewer over the past 20 yrs of their news and they are a joke over their news coverage.

   IMO they had no right to go to carters house.That is stalking and not acceptable.
   • joe bloggs 1.1

     16 June 2010 at 11:56 am

     that tawdry little game of “stalk the trougher” could have been nipped in the bud by Carter from the get-go if he had only taken his lead from Shane Jones and fronted up and apologised from the get-go. That would have stopped the media scrum in its tracks.

     Yesterday could have been the day on which Phil Goff showed his true mettle. It was a day for Labour leadership to try to shine through the gloom of last week’s revelations, with assertive behaviour, promotions and a fresh line-up on the front benches.

     Instead what we got was Carter going off like a rogue elephant and undermining every effort that Goff put into salvaging the situation. If Goff wants to salvage anything then Carter must go – and not just to the naughty chair on full pay.
   • seth 1.2

     17 June 2010 at 5:19 pm

     ummmm, maybe its because all this stuff is deserved by Labour after Phil Goff’s antics re the $70 on wine?

     TV3 don’t give a stuff about losing a whinger. Whinger’s are more trouble than they are worth.
2. Outofbed 2

   15 June 2010 at 7:58 pm

   I think there is a great danger in blaming the media all the time for the Left’s woes
   Yes there is bias get over it
   But fuck the Labour Party needs to get its act together
   Fronting with a grey leader who was a Douglas acolyte isn’t going to get great press is it ?
   The fuckers are just limping to defeat
   And we on the left deserve so much more
   • Michael Foxglove 2.1

     15 June 2010 at 8:03 pm

     Agreed Outofbed. Serious issues need to be sorted in Labour if the left is going to have a chance in this country. But the war to be won is about more than Labour.

     One battle includes demanding equal treatment for left ideals and people in our media.
   • Bored 2.2

     15 June 2010 at 8:06 pm

     Did you see the reporters chasing Carter? It was always going to happen so what did Carter do?
     Hid, ran away, hid in other MPs offices again, turned and ran.

     PATHETIC!!!! I dont care who or what he is, as a lefty I expect our MPs to show a little more backbone, spine, bravery in the face of adversity. I cant trust this wimp to represent our side with any fortitude. He is history. Get rid of him.
     • Lew 2.2.1

       15 June 2010 at 8:09 pm

       Couldn’t have said better myself, Bored.

       L
       • IrishBill 2.2.1.1

         15 June 2010 at 8:44 pm

         Better he front up, get abused and then have his response cut in such a way that we see another news-cycle of carter-mock? Damned if he does or if he doesn’t.
         • Lew 2.2.1.1.1

           15 June 2010 at 8:50 pm

           Perhaps so. But that’s the deal going in. Politicians are answerable to the public, and the media are the agents of that. They know (or ought to know) how the system works, and an ability to deal with a slavering pack of media hounds pursuing a legitimate matter of the public interest is a core part of the job.

           L
           • Marty G 2.2.1.1.1.1

             15 June 2010 at 8:52 pm

             they’re not the agents of public accountability.

             They ought to be. But they’re not.
           • Carol 2.2.1.1.1.2

             15 June 2010 at 8:55 pm

             Lew, that would be a reasonable argument, if the media were completely working to make the politicians accountable. It seems to me they are doing something different – ie pursuing their own, ratings-driven, sensationalising agenda, lacking any real depth of questioning critique, and skewing the issues.

             anti-spam: backwards

             PS: Marty said it better as I was typing.
           • Lew 2.2.1.1.1.3

             15 June 2010 at 9:06 pm

             They’re the agents of public accountability we’ve got. As I say: politicians know, or ought to know, how the system works and how to use it. If they don’t know, or refuse to work it, more fool them.

             It could be better, yes. But do you want them to behave as if they live in the real world, or in some imaginary world where the media are always scrupulously fair and every girl gets a pony for their 8th birthday?

             L
             • Carol …

               15 June 2010 at 9:17 pm

               Lew, the Labour Party can do with raising their act. And, yes, they could do with ditching all that neoliberal sell-out stuff they’ve acquired; get back in touch with their constituency & their left-wing principles. But you’re asking the politicians to do better and deal with the imperfect media we’ve got. You’re saying we shouldn’t put up with mediocre politicians, while on the other hand we should just accept that the media is mediocre (or worse).

               I’m saying that both the politicians and the media need to raise their games if democracy is to be served. And I have a bit of an aversion to the line that politics is a dirty macho game of hard-ball – get used to it & be prepared to give as good as you get, but do it more cleverly. I agree it is always going to require some fortitude, stamina and political intelligence, but there’s a real macho tone to it that is a turn-off for me.
               • Lew …

                 15 June 2010 at 9:21 pm

                 The difference is that we have reasonably direct control over the quality of our elected officials, but not over the quality of our media agents. We can send the media signals as to our preferences, and that’s important as well, but it’s not the same as being able to actuall turf them out when they’re revealed to be corrupt or useless. Just because we have to put up with crap media to a greater extent doesn’t mean we should put up with crap politicians. We have the ability to eject them from office, and we should do so.

                 L
                 • Puddleglum …

                   15 June 2010 at 10:33 pm

                   We can do more than “send the media signals as to our preferences”, Lew. Activists have always substituted, subverted and inverted media processes and messages. It’s not about being media savvy so much as bringing media to heel. They are not our ‘watchdogs’ – we are.

                   The most important progressive goal, I believe, is the first (‘substitution’)- to short-circuit media in so far as it becomes the place where proxy opinion formation and debate occur. They can, in fact, be ‘turfed out’ of that role through democratic action and activity, as they often have been. Postmodernity notwhithstanding, people remain most influenced by direct interactions with other people. It’s no coincidence that marketers and businesses worry so much over ‘word of mouth’ – the ‘random element’ that can invert or completely ignore your carefully crafted message.

                   In a democracy, media just provide fodder for debate, they can’t determine its focus, boundaries or contours, let alone its conclusion. That’s because, in a democracy, the politics of ordinary people occurs in daily life. (If you don’t have that, you can’t have a democracy – by definition). It’s happened before and it can happen again.

                   The very notion of a ‘progressive’ implies the duty to change any and all processes that undermine basic values of justice, fairness, compassion and the removal of oppression and the dissipation of concentrations of power. If there’s some large, amoeboid slug, phagocyting its way around society chewing up those values then it needs putting in its place.

                   The media is a valid target for progressive activism but, more importantly, activism can make it pretty much irrelevant – even today.

                   That’s the long term goal (or not so long term). In the meantime, yes, of course, progressive politicians should work the media well when they have to engage with it.
                   • IrishBill …

                     15 June 2010 at 10:42 pm

                     You missed my point entirely lew. By fleeing Carter took the one of two options. If he had stopped, been baited, commented and been badly grabbed you’d be on on this thread talking about how he said the wrong thing.

                     The fact is it’s a crapshoot which strategy would be better. One thing is for sure though – whichever option he took you’d be claiming the other option was better and making a rational argument as to why it was better.

                     And nobody would be able to prove you wrong.
                   • Lew …

                     16 June 2010 at 12:28 am

                     I wouldn’t be bagging him for standing his ground, Bill. I’d be bagging him for failing to compose himself and allowing himself to be baited. Because that’s the reason he runs away: because even he knows he’s shit under the spotlight. If he did a decent job of it I wouldn’t have cause to bag him at all; that’d be my preference, all things considered. Such as Jones, whose response I praised.

                     L
               • Bill …

                 15 June 2010 at 11:02 pm

                 @ Carol on the point of the dirty macho game…

                 Welcome to the patriarchy…oh, did we forget to mention that we have policies of positive discrimination so that you can better approximate a version of the efficacy of that distasteful macho bullshit by being promoted to useful positions within the scheme of things where you become a player too…sort of… in such a way that the underlying dynamics remain untouched, unchallenged and just ever so slightly that much less discernible to the extent that you …the non-white privileged non-male have assumed the garb of position and influence in a way that we can project back on to the general populace with palms outspread and ask ‘What sexism? What racism? We’re all a mixed bag of gender and races here…
         • Jenny 2.2.1.1.2

           16 June 2010 at 12:06 am

           You’re right Irish. I thought that Jonesy gave a better account of himself in to fronting up to much more embarrassingly personal revelations about his spending proclivities.

           Some people said he was being crazy, and that all he needed to do was just stay silent.

           Fronting up to the media like that would have taken some guts.

           Carter on the other hand decided to go down the no comment route and it didn’t turn out so good.
     • chris 2.2.2

       15 June 2010 at 8:12 pm

       uh huh. carter can fuck off tbqh. he should be cast aside
3. kriswgtn 3

   15 June 2010 at 8:11 pm

   But has any of them chased the pisshead Groser? nope

   its all about double standards
   • chris 3.1

     15 June 2010 at 8:13 pm

     groser hasn’t acted like as much of a tool as carter. he’s kept his head down and kept his arrogance in check
4. Carol 4

   15 June 2010 at 8:12 pm

   That reporter on Campbell Live said that Carter wasn’t at his home, in spite of the fact that Goff had sent him home to think about things. So, what? He was meant to be under house arrest? He was grounded by his dad?

   This is just sensationalist shonky tabloid journalism. Why aren’t they focusing on more of the crucial issues?
   • Bored 4.1

     15 June 2010 at 8:21 pm

     Carol, in this case Carters where abouts are no longer of any importance. How the press treated him is not the issue either. His response was everything. He failed us. If he cant face the press when cornered how will he ever face anything else head on? Can you imagine Helen Clark reacting like this, or any of her front bench ladies and men?
     • Carol 4.1.1

       15 June 2010 at 8:44 pm

       Bored, would Clark/Cullen have thrown someone to the wolves like that? It looked like Goff was making a public show of being a tough guy & in control. Would someone who was really confidently leading a team need to make such a show through publicly sacficing someone quite like that?
       • IrishBill 4.1.1.1

         15 June 2010 at 8:46 pm

         Oh there’s a story and a half there. Maybe I’ll tell it one day.
       • gobsmacked 4.1.1.2

         15 June 2010 at 8:51 pm

         Goff didn’t throw him to the wolves. He demoted Carter, but not harshly. Goff has actually handled this very well overall.

         But Carol is absolutely right about the tabloid TV. Sending a reporter to Carter’s house, with flowers, was straight out of the UK Sun.

         John Campbell, what has happened to you?
       • Bored 4.1.1.3

         15 June 2010 at 8:57 pm

         Fair point Carol, but ultimately he had to face the music alone. I suspect that you are onto the Gough thing, it looked equally suspect. Have you ever experienced that thing at work where somebody is on the outer and the tribal behavoir sets in, the person becomes a loner? Cut out of any meaningful human contact? I suspect that is where Carter is now with his colleagues. He has my sympathy for being in that position but not for his self inflicted loss of dignity.
         • IrishBill 4.1.1.3.1

           15 June 2010 at 10:46 pm

           Carol, actually Goff did throw Carter to the wolves.

           And Campbell is afraid of Ian Audsley. That’s what’s happened to him.
       • SHG 4.1.1.4

         15 June 2010 at 10:47 pm

         Dalziel, Samuels…
       • grumpy 4.1.1.5

         16 June 2010 at 10:18 am

         D-O-V-E-R S-A-M-U-E-L-S

         J-O-H-N T-A-M-I-H-E-R-E
5. RedLogix 5

   15 June 2010 at 8:15 pm

   I’ll say this once. This is only going to get much worse. It may not ever get better.

   Labour has been suckered into playing their game. I spent much of the weekend showing how it should have been played… because there is only one way to deal with sociopathic bullying. You take it back to them, on the front foot.
6. gobsmacked 6

   15 June 2010 at 8:19 pm

   At about 6 pm I was pissed off with Carter. Then I turned on my TV.

   By 8 pm I was wondering if Labour had unearthed a new Machiavelli, a master manipulator.

   The TV coverage tonight said three things: Goff in charge, Carter hiding, but above all – media petty and obsessed.

   I guarantee that the average voter, who doesn’t much care who Carter is, would have watched that and thought: “What a bunch of dicks.”

   In surveys, politicians are consistently rated near the bottom of public esteem. Right next to journos. Tonight we saw why.
7. Mac1 7

   15 June 2010 at 8:33 pm

   On Campbell tonight, with Tony the reporter outside Carter’s house, holding the flowers purportedly for Carter because ‘he likes giving flowers”, was sickening, bullying, invasive, hugely wrong behaviour.

   For shame.
   • Bored 7.1

     15 June 2010 at 8:48 pm

     The press were what they always are, who is surprised? They dont need much of an excuse to act like scuzzballs. If you cant face these bullies head on you are of no use, they will always hound you.
     • Lew 7.1.1

       15 June 2010 at 9:01 pm

       Agreed again.

       There’s too much bleating about how it’s not fair. Either you can quibble and whinge and go appeal to the ref, or you can harden the fuck up and realise that there is no ref. National and its proxies built this narrative around Carter, starting while he was the minister, and it has paid off with this most recently-revealed set of revelations. If you want to win, one strategy is to start building your own narratives around vulnerable opponents.

       And if you want to eschew these sorts of tactics since they’re distasteful, then that’s fair enough as well. That’s not a burden anyone’s forced upon you, it’s one you’ve taken on yourself, presumably because it has other attendant advantages. So don’t complain about it. There are other strategies, and to be honest any coherent strategy is better than the tactics recently employed by Labour, which swing between just this sort of lurid smear, and the pure and simple high ground

       L
       • RedLogix 7.1.1.1

         15 June 2010 at 9:32 pm

         Exactly Lew. (Hell we may go ding dong on other things, but sometimes we’re on the same page..)

         Labour are utterly delusional if they imagined for an instant that having demoted their people to satisfy the mob madness, that the media would turn on the hand that feeds them and demand the same standard of accountability from National.

         Of course not. The feeding mob sniffs out weakness and will pursue it to the death.
         • Lew 7.1.1.1.1

           16 June 2010 at 8:12 am

           Hooray for the things we can agree on, then!

           L
           • Carol 7.1.1.1.1.1

             16 June 2010 at 8:30 am

             This sounds like it comes from the “Bring-Back-The-Biff” school of politics.
             • Lew …

               16 June 2010 at 8:45 am

               More like the reverse-Clausewitz “politics is war by other means” school. While pacifism is a strong symbolic and rhetorical position, it doesn’t win wars, and there are times when it’s important to stand and fight for what you believe. Similarly, there are (many) times when a strong commitment to non-violence is appropriate.

               The point is that, if you can’t win, you don’t get to advance your progressive agenda; and if you’re not a credible opposition, the government gets to enact their own policy agenda with impunity. While it’s important to not adopt strategies which substantively undermine your agenda in order to win (selling out tangata whenua with the FSA was an example of such), there’s a balance to be found.

               The biff is already back, and it’s back for good. Refusing to acknowledge that fact hasn’t done the left any good at all, and has largely permitted the right to ride roughshod over it. That’s a damned shame.

               L
       • Mac1 7.1.1.2

         16 June 2010 at 3:45 pm

         In this play, I am the referee and according to my rules my whistle decision stands. The public is the ultimate ref via the voter.

         You of course can call it as it stands for you. I/You/We/the public can make our points of view known. In sum we might make a difference.

         But at least I get to sound off. And, Lew, by ‘bleating’ other sheep like me might actually see the bias and tripe handed to us as news and discount accordingly.

         On another note, what claim can a reporter make to being ‘impartial’ and not having a personal agenda when he acts like Tony on TV3 with his flowers?

         It is serious and important to point out the difference between so-called balanced reporting, impartiality and own agenda.

         Whether it happens or what tactics should be used to counter or even should we mimic distasteful tactics is another matter, and you discuss this. But I am entitled to point out distasteful tactics without being told to harden the fuck up. Such language doesn’t strengthen the message, just the delivery, perhaps….

         You might of course be using the second person as an impersonal usage- but it isn’t clear and can be taken as personal.
         • Lew 7.1.1.2.1

           16 June 2010 at 3:57 pm

           Mac1, you’re right. That is part of the public role. I do use the Royal You, so don’t take it personally.

           And you’re right — you might make a difference. But if you think this is a substitute for a media strategy, I’ve got 700,000 people who watch One News every night (and another 400,000 who watch 3, and half a million who listen to NatRad, and a couple hundred thousand who read the Herald, and …) who disagree with you, or worse yet — who haven’t even heard you and wouldn’t care if they had. The difference you might make is so small as to be irrelevant.

           That’s my problem: not that there are objections to the poor standard of the media, but all too often that that’s all there seems to be. Blaming the media seems to be an out which permits people to say “I’ve done my bit” rather than address some of the causes of bad or biased or sensational media coverage by applying pressure to your favoured political actors to change the behaviour which attracts such reporting. The media are not the deserving objects of your distaste. They’re just doing what they do and you have little or no control over that. But if you’re a Labour supporter you do have control over whether he remains a liability or not, and I suggest you exercise it.

           L
8. mickysavage 8

   15 June 2010 at 8:51 pm

   I agree with what many have said but …

   I wish Carter just said, Catholic like, “I have stuffed up and I am sorry” and then walked calmly to the door.

   I wish then that the media and everyone could concentrate on the important issues like climate change, funding superannuation and why we are giving tax cuts to the uber wealthy while the Crown debt goes up.

   By giving the media the fingers Carter is putting himself into a Winston Peters type situation.

   He is far too good a politician. He is passionate, he is articulate and he has achieved great things. His achievements as Conservation Minister were superb. So much more of the country and the coastline is protected because of him.

   But as a Labour MP and a representative of ordinary people he should conduct himself in a way which they would approve of.
9. just saying 9

   15 June 2010 at 8:59 pm

   The media have behaved badly, but there is a serious issue that needs to be faced.

   Bryce Edwards sums it up nicely:

   http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/
   • mickysavage 9.1

     15 June 2010 at 9:05 pm

     So Chris had a massage on the card, Shane watched a few movies he should not have, Judith had a $155 bottle of bolly, Nick Smith had $206k of legal aid because he shot his mouth off, English had gazillions after rearranging his family trust and the profits that Key has enjoyed after making decisions that beneficially affected the value of assets owned by his family trust are as yet unmeasured.

     The Labour MPs should have been more frugal but how do you justify the actions of the nats?
     • Bored 9.1.1

       15 June 2010 at 9:17 pm

       Maybe its time for Labour to get all the issues on the table. As they say when the going gets tough the tough get going. Harder headed commitment to harder headed principles, policies and leadership. Whens the next conference?
       • mickysavage 9.1.1.1

         15 June 2010 at 9:26 pm

         The trouble is that the left tends to lose the yelling contests with the right. We are just not belligerent enough and we think more about the issues before replying. We are far better at the policy stuff and the population responds better when the big picture is presented.

         When it is a pissing competition about who misbehaved more the exchange of accusations makes it look like an even contest.
         • mickysavage 9.1.1.1.1

           15 June 2010 at 10:01 pm

           I realise that I have just contradicted myself but it has been one of those days …
         • SHG 9.1.1.1.2

           15 June 2010 at 10:50 pm

           The trouble is that the left tends to lose the yelling contests with the right. We are just not belligerent enough

           Well, when you stack the front benches with homosexuals you do run the risk of losing those behaviours most closely related to male testosterone. Like aggression.
           • aj 9.1.1.1.2.1

             15 June 2010 at 11:02 pm

             Crap.
           • Lew 9.1.1.1.2.2

             16 June 2010 at 8:09 am

             … because homosexuals don’t have testosterone? Come on, SHG, even you’re not that stupid.

             L
             • felix …

               16 June 2010 at 8:34 am

               “Come on, SHG, even you’re not that stupid.”

               [citation needed]
             • SHG …

               16 June 2010 at 1:02 pm

               Yeah, I was going for laughs on that one and failed. Miserably.
               • Lew …

                 16 June 2010 at 1:10 pm

                 When playing the giggle gag, it pays not to stick too close to your customary lines of argument.

                 L
                 • SHG …

                   16 June 2010 at 1:49 pm

                   Yeah, at first I was going to go with a Mallard reference for the belligerence angle – I mean come on, assaulting a fellow MP at Parliament? It seemed too easy. I should’ve stuck with it.
                   • felix …

                     16 June 2010 at 2:40 pm

                     Shoulda gone with “jerk store”…
     • just saying 9.1.2

       15 June 2010 at 9:31 pm

       I don’t, I’m not justifying the behaviour of the nats.
       I’m saying that Labour has all but become them and that’s the problem.
       Are you saying we can expect no better from Labour than being not quite as bad as the nats?

       Misplaced, should be below 9.1
10. really 10

    15 June 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Classic Comedy
11. ianmac 11

    15 June 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Regardless, I thought the media frenzy was inexcusable. They were far more sleazy than Carter. Tv1 and 3 were behaving sickly. Yuk!
12. Anne 12

    15 June 2010 at 9:28 pm

    I’m with you Ianmac. It was like something out of Keystone Cops only this time the media were the cops. For that reason it was funny to watch, but I think it will be the grubby media who get the kick in the butt by the public… once they’ve had a chance to reflect on what they saw.
13. Jim Nald 13

    15 June 2010 at 9:29 pm

    I was totally put off by TV1 and TV3 tonight. I turned off the tv.
    Aspects of this smacks of schoolboy silliness and bullying.
    I’ve got some visitors from overseas who are staying with me and are surprised by the kind of so-called news reporting.
    I’ve been apologising to them, saying the media people here by comparison with our English-speaking broadcasters overseas, are mediocre, stupid and low quality.
    So we’ve taken to live-streaming of BBC, ABC and Deutsche Welle English Service (computer connected to amplifier so we can all listen in the lounge).
    If anyone wants the links to these, let me know.
    • Bill 13.1

      15 June 2010 at 10:24 pm

      The BBC? You being serious? Always avoided for being thinly veiled right wing tosh.

      Ah, but I forget that was another time and another place. After moving to NZ the Beeb has had the capacity to appear strangely objective and informative when compared to the oozing skank media of NZ

      Still…
14. big bruv 14

    15 June 2010 at 9:29 pm

    You guys are unbelievable.

    Where was this concern for our media when Clark was in power?

    Her government had an amazingly free ride from the press for most of her nine years, she made it quite clear that anything less than fawning reporting of her government would be met with the sternest of rebukes.

    Did I hear you moaning about her abuse of power?…of course not, you want the media to run nothing but Labour spin and Labour party propaganda, well, they did that for nine years, I guess they are just getting their own back now.

    Then again, what more would you expect from state owned TV, it would be a good idea to sell the thing, NO government should ever own a television network or a series of radio stations.
    • gobsmacked 14.1

      15 June 2010 at 9:49 pm

      Hey, Big Bruv, I saw you defending Carter from the bigots on Kiwiblog. You old liberal softie, you!
      • big bruv 14.1.1

        16 June 2010 at 7:21 pm

        gobsmacked

        I did not defend Carter at all, as far as I can see NZ politics will be a far better place without the man, I also detest his usual fall back line of “they only pick on me because I am gay”, the issue is not about his sexuality as I could not care less what he does in the privacy of his own home.

        The point I was trying to make is that there are still a huge number of Kiwis (both left and right) who DO make his sexuality an issue, they just happen to use his indefensible abuse of public funds as an excuse to out the boot in.

        Me, well I do not need an excuse, he is a trougher of the highest order and he should go.
    • ianmac 14.2

      15 June 2010 at 9:49 pm

      Big Bruv.You can rave on about the Clark years if you like but… Did you approve/enjoy the spectacle broadcast of a Carter chase? Yes/No.
      • really 14.2.1

        15 June 2010 at 9:53 pm

        Yes.

        Face the facts, Carter is toast and should have pushed off before last election.
      • big bruv 14.2.2

        16 June 2010 at 7:24 pm

        Yes I did enjoy it to be honest, something about chickens coming home and all that…

        Carter got what he deserved, he could and should have dealt with it in the same way that Shane Jones did, front up, being genuine in your apology and then go away for a while.
        Instead we got an ex minister of the crown acting like a silly little school kid.
    • Jim Nald 14.3

      15 June 2010 at 10:14 pm

      “Her government had an amazingly free ride from the press for most of her nine years” – haha, excellent revisionism. Well done. Keep making me love John Key’s Govt more.
15. tsmithfield 15

    15 June 2010 at 9:34 pm

    I think things went sour for Carter with the media when his first comment was something like: I am going to make a statement before you start throwing questions at me.

    He then made the statement, but then tried to crawl away without actually letting any questions be asked, even though he implied they could be in his opening comment.
    • ianmac 15.1

      15 June 2010 at 9:58 pm

      You have got to be kidding! McCulley had questions to answer re overdspending. He refused to front up. Several days later he put out a short written statement. He still has not fronted up. And you clearly have a lopsided view of a fair go. Shame on you!
16. really 16

    15 June 2010 at 9:48 pm

    Oh those yucky icky naaaaasty journalists doing their job. If Carter had been doing his job and not doing over the tax payer this wouldn’t have happened.
    • gobsmacked 16.1

      15 June 2010 at 9:52 pm

      @really

      Do you think the journalists’ job is to hold politicians to account, when they’re spending taxpayers’ money?
      • really 16.1.1

        15 June 2010 at 10:29 pm

        Why do you think they are called the forth estate?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
        • gobsmacked 16.1.1.1

          15 June 2010 at 10:36 pm

          @Really

          Good, we agree on that.

          Today in Parliament a Minister was asked about spending $4,800,000 in taxpayers’ money. She refused to answer. Repeatedly. The Speaker was fed up.

          http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/3/6/4/49HansQ_20100615_00000011-11-Budget-2010-Pacific-Economic-Development.htm

          So, could you please tell us which journalists have reported this? After all, we both agree that it’s their job. Which ones have done it?
          • really 16.1.1.1.1

            15 June 2010 at 10:39 pm

            Your telling the story buddy don’t try and drag me into your diversionary spinette.
            • gobsmacked 16.1.1.1.1.1

              15 June 2010 at 10:43 pm

              So you don’t think spending millions of taxpayer dollars is important?

              Should politicians be held to account by journalists for spending our money, or not?

              It’s not a difficult question.
              • really …

                15 June 2010 at 10:47 pm

                Oh I am all intimidated now. Stop being nasty.
                • gobsmacked …

                  15 June 2010 at 10:51 pm

                  Should politicians be held to account by journalists for spending our money, or not?

                  At 9.48 you thought so. What’s changed?
                  • really …

                    15 June 2010 at 10:54 pm

                    I said that’s what the Fourth estate is for. If you have a problem with what they choose to print then I suggest you have a chat with your local hack. Hope this helps you understand.
                    • gobsmacked …

                      15 June 2010 at 11:04 pm

                      @really

                      So in summary, you think that journalists should hold politicians to account, and if it involves hundreds of dollars and the team you don’t support, then they are “doing their job”.

                      But if it involves millions of dollars and the team you do support, they don’t need to.

                      Glad we’ve sorted that out.

                      PS You’re going to feel very, very silly in a day or two, when the PEDA story finally does break. Do yourself a favour, go back and read some Hansard.
                    • really …

                      15 June 2010 at 11:15 pm

                      In summary, I think that if you have a problem with what the media publish then you should take it up with them. Hope this clearly outlines my position.

                      OMG: Was that *really* a political geek challenge to read some Hansard in response to the media quite rightly caning the shit of Chris Carter for being a petulant troughing prima dona? *shakes head in disbelief*
                    • felix …

                      16 June 2010 at 7:43 am

                      Funny, this is exactly how Georgina behaved in the house when she was repeatedly asked a straight question.

                      Are you sure you haven’t been reading the Hansard already?
17. Andy C 17

    15 June 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Mike Williams was on the radio this evening. He thought Carters appology was not written by him but wouldn’t speculate on who wrote it. He highlighted that Jones and Ririnui must be really pissed as they lost all their responsibilities whilst Carter got Conservation.

    “would Clark/Cullen have thrown someone to the wolves like that?” Is HC still leading Goff in the preferred Prime Minster stakes ?? Goff should have thrown Carter out long time back after he framed the debate with Heatlys two bottles of wine.

    But as Annette King said about Heatly on RNZ “I dont understand why he quit over such a minor issue. There must be more to it than that.” How right you were.
18. J Mex 18

    15 June 2010 at 10:11 pm

    There is a lot of blame of the media here, but contrast the “harrasment” given to Shane Jones vs the treatment of Carter today.

    Jones fronted up, apologised and his been pretty much left alone.

    Contrast that with Carter – refusing to answer questions, “cute” responses, ignoring questions and actual running away. Silly. The journos responded in kind.

    Now, what is important here, is not what the Red team think (evil corrupted Journos!) or what the Kiwibloggers think (we got rid of that p00f), but what the “ordinary New Zealanders” (sorry Goff) thought when they saw the news. They saw someone who they thought had been excessive with his spending literally running away from an apology. I think everyone here can agree it was a bad look.

    Now for the big question of the day – Exactly what is Goff’s new gunslinger walk all about??? I saw it when he was interviewed after getting off the plane from China. I thought it might have been caused by deep vein thrombosis. But no, it was back again tonight!
19. Bill 19

    15 June 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Y’know, I reckon he should have turned around and asked how people reckoned he, as a gay MP was ever meant to exert control over credit card use and to just all get fucked….’cause it’s a gene thang in case y’all don’t know.
20. aj 20

    15 June 2010 at 10:47 pm

    I think the tawdry spectacle of journos hounding Carter today may have given him a sympathy bounce. The only thing missing was JT turning up and doing some gay bashing.
    I was asking myself why Labour doesn’t hammer the Nat’s rorting more until Mallard gave Blinglish stick in the house today. They need to front foot this more.
21. burt 21

    15 June 2010 at 11:02 pm

    I think the media are just seriously stunned to have a Labour minister apologising for anything let alone apologising for having a sense of entitlement. Can’t blame them for making a meal out of it, one in a lifetime opportunity.

    Captcha: Preference
    • RedLogix 21.1

      16 June 2010 at 12:55 pm

      Nice to see you concerned about how retrospective all this is this burt.
    • burt 21.2

      16 June 2010 at 2:04 pm

      retrospectively auditing misuse of tax payers money and holding people accountable is the complete opposite of saying the last 14 years were just fine and dandy because the rules were confusing. But hey, you knew that.
22. Cactus Kate 22

    15 June 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Short memories. Worth was stalked by media til he quit. You didn’t see right wing blogs crying about that. I suggest similar for Carter. Quit and for left wing blogs to accept him as a casualty of war.
    • burt 22.1

      16 June 2010 at 4:51 pm

      But he was only guilty of trying to help Air NZ shareholders.
23. Adrian 23

    15 June 2010 at 11:22 pm

    When the two biggest cities in the country have lefty mayoral candidates miles in front, something is going on, which may explain the Nacts shit spreading. The tide of public opinion may not have turned noticeably on the coast but it starts in the backwaters and gathers momentum, right leanings analysts can see it and are privately ringing the warning bells. I think this issue will end badly for Key and co because as we always get told, people don’t like muckraking when it starts to look petty, and this week I have been surprised by the number of people who think this looks a lot like that.
24. really 24

    15 June 2010 at 11:36 pm

    It starts in the backwaters and gathers momentum….yeah…nice turn of phrase.

    Do you think the people of Manukau and Christchurch appreciate your urban liberal patronising tone or is it that you just don’t give a fuck and are a little bitter about the tawdry way in which poor little Chris Carter has been unfairly hounded for being a petulant troughing prima dona. Just askin’.
    • Adrian 24.1

      16 June 2010 at 9:52 am

      Does “really” stand for “really fucking stupid”, hows that for patronising . I’m a farmer and I’ve been talking to farmers, who are not impressed by whoever it is that has highjacked their National party since around 1990, which is why they stayed home during that election and are likely to do so again next year, some are also alarmed at the CORPORATIONS (not farmers) in cahoots with Key and Creech grabbing all the water for dairying. I don’t support Chris Carter’s attitude but he has been a bloody good minister, and maybe if he had stayed at backpackers and entertained other Foreign Ministers at McDonalds, washed his one shirt in the handbasin like that anal retentive Brash ( btw,what happened to him?) all this may not have happened. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if these baying arseholes objected to the extra cheese.
25. Cadwallader 25

    16 June 2010 at 8:43 am

    Jones will survive this: Carter will not! Not due to his being gay but due to his being a petulant weakling. Goff should sack him and if necessary oversee a by-election. Goff then would have the opportunity to stamp his mark on what is a wavering leadership of his party.
26. Babylon And On 26

    16 June 2010 at 10:58 am

    Mr Carter can thank his lucky stars that the naughtiness he once got up to in Dubai was never exposed.
    • ianmac 26.1

      16 June 2010 at 11:14 am

      I am reminded of when Smith had a meltdown at a time he was nearly National’s Deputy Leader. He was a real mess but I don’t remember the media hounding him or writing him off. What sort of people kick a man when he’s down? Why not wait a day or so? Shame on you!
      • Tigger 26.1.1

        16 June 2010 at 2:50 pm

        You don’t want to start that game Babylon – there is a lot of ‘naughtiness’ that can be exposed, from all sides of the House. And in certain mayoral contests…
27. Babylon And On 27

    16 June 2010 at 11:02 am

    The only reason Jones offered contrition was because he couldn’t lie about it anymore. His political career is over, he won’t be taken seriously again.. tossing off to grubby movies in his room and expecting the public to pay. What audacity.

    [lprent: you look like a ignorant troll who either doesn’t keep up with events, or only has a passing relationship with being truthful. In either case your comments today are pathetic and definitely not up to the standard. Go away for at least a week. ]
28. Santi 28

    16 June 2010 at 11:31 am

    Carter, the shameless trougher has been found out. Resignation time for this cheat!
    Why doesn’t Goff sack him? Ideal opportunity to show some leadership.
29. randal 29

    16 June 2010 at 11:36 am

    face it.
    the press gallery are worse than the most anal of school monitors and have never broken a real story in their lives.
    most of them need to losen the elastic in their underpants or go and buy a decent pork chop.
    If I had been in Chris carters shoes I would have given them the treatment that is dished out in the parliaments of the former soviet republics.
    haw haw haw.
    • ianmac 29.1

      16 June 2010 at 12:33 pm

      Randal:”the press gallery are worse than the most anal of school monitors and have never broken a real story in their lives.”
      Hear hear!
      • Tigger 29.1.1

        16 June 2010 at 2:40 pm

        TVNZ are OIA-able, no? Anyone want to see their credit card bills?
        • kriswgtn 29.1.1.1

          16 June 2010 at 2:44 pm

          Especially to see what Henry’s and Holmes clothing alowance is 🙂
30. Santi 30

    16 June 2010 at 12:37 pm

    More throughing from the champion of the poor: “Mr. Anderton charged a round of golf to the tax­pay­ers while stay­ing with his wife at Mill­brook Resort in Queen­stown.”

    What a disgrace funded by us!
    • ianmac 30.1

      16 June 2010 at 2:00 pm

      And un-like you poor old Santi, he does play with balls!
      • Santi 30.1.1

        16 June 2010 at 3:19 pm

        Feeble defense. Ian, you obviously condone the inappropriate use of funds on Anderton’s part. As a minister, he was paid almost 200,000 dollars. Why did he have to resort to pay green fees with our money?

        Remove your ideological blinkers and please explain.
        • ianmac 30.1.1.1

          16 June 2010 at 3:34 pm

          Santi: my remarks were derisive.
          I expect that you are right that Mr Anderton did have a round of golf. Wow! Was it a business occasion? (Remember many deals are sorted on golf courses, though I would rather concentrate on hitting the ball) Did he repay it? What were the circumstances? I expect that neither you nor I know and really. Who cares?
          How about $500,000 for Bill English? Versus $25 Green fees. Ummm.
          Cheers.
          • Santi 30.1.1.1.1

            16 June 2010 at 3:40 pm

            Yes, the circumstances are unknown, but I’d expect Anderton to exercise his criteria and pay for the fees with his own funds.

            I found English as bad as the rest of offending MPs. Another trougher, this time dressed in blue colour (National). Same crook, different party.
          • aj 30.1.1.1.2

            16 June 2010 at 6:32 pm

            $70 I think but if business was transacted for NZ then extremely good value for money
31. Andy C 31

    16 June 2010 at 10:34 pm

    You guys still dont get it. Worth fronted up to Key and offered to resign. Key accepted , and the resignation was the news not the reason. Who gives a stuff about 2 bottles of wine. If Carter et al had done the same they would spend a few months on the back benches and come round again in the reshuffle. Its the hold onto power at any cost mentality that is HC’s legacy. Goff would be on the front foot saying “Well Chris has done the right thing with resigning and I’m sure there will be a place for him etc etc.”
    • burt 31.1

      16 June 2010 at 11:19 pm

      How will Carter survive after the massive pay cut and a reduced ability to charge up his fun on the tax payers?

      Every other person I’ve ever seen, or heard of, reprimanded for persistent expense account misuse has walked right out the door, not just down the hall. He’s a lucky man to have a job in parliament, no other workplace would deal so lightly with his antics.

Links to post

1. Curious Bee: posted on 15 June 2010 at 11:28 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS