More shoddy reporting from The Herald

25 comments on “More shoddy reporting from The Herald ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kimble 1

   17 January 2008 at 8:32 pm

   So? They didnt say anything to do with National or Labour.

   The fact they worked with a National MP would only matter to the sorts of mouth-breathing, partisan dimwits who make their decision on who is right and wrong based upon their political affiliations.

   Good on you for confirming that you are one of them.

   Most people would be too embarrassed to do so.
2. all_your_base 2

   17 January 2008 at 8:44 pm

   Mouth-breathing-nose-breathing. It all depends.
3. gobsmacked 3

   17 January 2008 at 8:46 pm

   “They didnt say anything to do with National or Labour.”

   Rubbish. The piece contains a long list of criticisms of the current government. (These may or may not be justified, but they are made by National party activists, nothing less).

   It’s a classic example of not leaving fingerprints. This is an age-old political tactic, and it’s the media’s job to expose it, not facilitate it. And not to treat the readers like idiots.
4. Benodic 4

   17 January 2008 at 8:52 pm

   What’s with all the small caps sprout and bean? I love you guys but I find it kind of hard to read.
5. all_your_base 5

   17 January 2008 at 8:58 pm

   SAME BEN’ BUT BETTER THAN ALL CAPS I S’POSE.
6. Tane 6

   17 January 2008 at 9:02 pm

   You’re right gobsmacked, if you read the article (I hadn’t until I saw this post) almost the entire article – and I mean every second sentence – is an attack on the present government. That’s definitely worthy of a disclaimer, and the Herald has failed its readers in not giving one.
7. Billy 7

   17 January 2008 at 9:10 pm

   Sounds like they’ve done what I like to call an ODT:

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=859
8. Benodic 8

   17 January 2008 at 9:17 pm

   Yeah the ODT should have disclosed that one too. I do find it happens more on the right though. Richard Long’s a classic example, Matthew Hooton’s another goodie.
9. Billy 9

   17 January 2008 at 9:19 pm

   You’re right. No-one has any idea Matthew Hooton is a right winger.
10. the bean 10

    17 January 2008 at 9:25 pm

    garden computers don’t come with a caps lock or shift key. anywho it is just me that has that irritating habit- sprout is quite sane
11. Benodic 11

    17 January 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Billy: They’ll know he’s right, but they may not realise the fact he’s had such a history as a paid spin doctor for the Nats. You can’t trust a word he says as honest opinion.
12. Tane 12

    17 January 2008 at 10:47 pm

    Now this is a weird story from the Herald:

    Bloggers resurrect debate over flags

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487376
13. redbus 13

    18 January 2008 at 1:06 am

    For fricks sake… They didn’t say ‘Vote National’. They didn’t mention any party – though they did point out things which this Govt. has done.

    Why shouldn’t they.

    I happen to agree with them.
14. redbus 14

    18 January 2008 at 2:21 am

    Umm… Smiley face.. 🙂

    I still love The Standard!
15. Benodic 15

    18 January 2008 at 8:06 am

    They’re fully entitled to criticise the govt, but they should disclose who the people are writing it. This was more Nat spin about the EFA etc than it was about republicanism. The subtext of the whole article was “this government is bad and corrupt, EFA EFA EFA, dangerous Labour government, destroying our constitution, what would this mean for a republic?”
16. the bean 16

    18 January 2008 at 10:00 am

    exactly Benodic. nothing wrong with the commentary, apart from being poorly argued and rather misinformed.

    but to pass-off the authors as neutral aspiring academics who just happen to have an interest in the topic (indeed, to the extent where they write a sizeable article on it and get published in the country’s biggest paper) isn’t on. i have an interest in interest rates but i can’t see myself getting quite such a generous allocation of column inches on it, even if i was well informed on the technicalities. clearly Palmer and O’Connor don’t have the most robust understanding of the technicalities of their subject either, but oddly they still felt moved enough to write quite a long piece for our largest daily newspaper. how passionate they must be to spend their holidays so.

    if the Herald’s reputation for objectivity was damaged by their anti-EFB Fight for the Priviledge of the Rich Campaign, this hasn’t done much to improve things has it?

    do you think the Herald knew these guys were National party staffers or do you think they just accept anything from anyone who writes content that supports their stance, no questions asked, no google required?

    makes you wonder which other “independent experts” provide their objective appraisals of the issues.
17. Mark 17

    18 January 2008 at 10:01 am

    Yeah they should be taken out and shot.

    How can they be allowed to have a voice in the media.

    They once worked for the National party.

    Kill them I say.

    Why don’t you guys delare everything you have done in your lives, like how many time you masturbate to Helen Clark picture.
18. the sprout 18

    18 January 2008 at 10:05 am

    Mark, you should know that the anti-EFA fake-censorship strawmen don’t really run as well here as they do at the bog. it’s a simple matter of the Herald correctly identifying the sources they present as “independent”.
    it’s actually about transparency – i thought you guys liked that stuff?
19. Tane 19

    18 January 2008 at 10:06 am

    Mark you don’t appear to have understood the arguments being made here. I suggest you read them again and refrain from the abuse next time.
20. Matthew Pilott 20

    18 January 2008 at 11:03 am

    Tane, mark hasn’t got used to putting an apostrophe and an “s” at the end of words to indicate ownership. How can you expect him to read and weigh for himself two sides of a debate?

    Don’t be so harsh on the poor child.

    “The people who are destroying the present constitutional conventions are the very people who would be spearheading any new republican constitution. ” That sounds very neutral and apolitical… there is actually no substance to that statement.

    (Cap: “tory friends “- who needs enemies, right? 😉 )
21. Phil 21

    20 January 2008 at 11:58 am

    Bean,

    “makes you wonder which other “independent experts” provide their objective appraisals of the issues.”

    Like, erm, maybe Chris Trotter?

    🙂

    (Captcha; “Colossal Showings” – well, thestandard has been getting an awful lot of comments recently; props to you guys’n’gals)
22. Tane 22

    20 January 2008 at 12:14 pm

    To be fair to Trotter, his articles in the Fairfax papers run under the header “From the Left” and while he’s open about his desire to see a Labour-led government he certainly doesn’t run the party line. Unlike commentators such as Long, Hooton and Bassett, for example, who have been actively involved in formulating the National Party’s lines.
23. Tane 23

    20 January 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Oh and Phil, cheers for the props, and for your constructive contributions to the debate.
24. Jum 24

    20 January 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Bassett is scum to me. Looking at one of his articles, he says what went wrong in New Zealand and throughout the world could all be blamed on women on the benefit. The same women (wives and mothers) who are/were called ‘unoccupied’ in the national accounting system, who have acted as lynchpins in families throughout the centuries, who received no respect or value and when they finally had had enough and sought autonomy – that’s feminism, which to most women means refusing to be treated like a doormat, beaten, raped, murdered – by that I mean outside help, and they were awarded the DPB for them and their children to be allowed to live as human beings, Bassett comes along and starts accusing them of bringing down the country/the world EVEN. I didn’t realise he was so scared of women.

    Then the Act pretending to be Labour gang moved in and started implementing their plans and if they hadn’t been stopped by Lange they would have brought in Douglas’s plan to shut down women’s refuges and any chance of dignity for these women.

    The people I work with and the circles I move in suggest that Bassett and his cronies are to blame for anything going wrong in our system and the mere mention of him working with National only adds to my belief that National should never be allowed near the front benches ever again.
25. Graeme Edgeler 25

    21 January 2008 at 8:10 pm

    No-one has any idea Matthew Hooton is a right winger.

    I’m not saying they shouldn’t put something, but do you have to have the whole CV? How would “Matthew Hooton is a political operative who most recently helped run the mayoral campaign of former Labour cabinet minister John Tamihere” work for you as a disclaimer?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS