Open mike 26/08/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 26th, 2015 - 143 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

143 comments on “Open mike 26/08/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    26 August 2015 at 6:39 am

    The Herald continues to try to reassure its property owning ( and owing) readership.
    ‘There is no economic crisis ……..There is no economic crisis ………There is no economic crisis ………There is no economic crisis ……..

    John Key has it all under control……….John Key has it all under control……….John Key has it all under control……….John Key has it all under control……….

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11502803

    • marty mars 1.1
      26 August 2015 at 7:59 am

      Paul do you see the irony of posting how crap the herald is because of what you have read in the herald?

      • Realblue 1.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 9:21 am

        He doesn’t.

        • Morrissey 1.1.1.1
          26 August 2015 at 9:29 am

          Oooohh, I think he does. You, on the other hand, are not entirely capable of making that sort of judgement. (I’ve just had a look at your sorry recent posts.)

        • Paul 1.1.1.2
          26 August 2015 at 2:48 pm

          Highlighting the bias and incompetence of the mainstream media has a point.
          You never know if it were not pointed out, simple right wingers might actually believe what they are told to think by such sources.

      • b waghorn 1.1.2
        26 August 2015 at 12:33 pm

        I think Paul should keep at it , they might not admit on the other side but the standard is being read by a lot of people in the news game IMO , so any pressure being applied is good .

      • AmaKiwi 1.1.3
        26 August 2015 at 2:22 pm

        Follow the money.

        The Herald survives on real estate advertising.

      • North 1.1.4
        26 August 2015 at 8:23 pm

        That would have to be a pretty stupid comment from you MM……like we talk about the horrors of a fart from whomsoever yet assiduously avoid talking about whomsoever ? And we talk about the crap of the Herald and deny reading it ? Not your best work !

  2. Morrissey 2
    26 August 2015 at 7:15 am

    What is it about Television One that lends itself to such foolishness?
    Jack Tame is quite possibly stupider than Mike Hosking.
    Seven Sharp, Television One, Tuesday 25 August 2015

    “I read a column by Jack Tame today….” —-Jim Mora, 16 July 2014

    bewildered /bɪˈwɪldəd/ adj. 1. confused and indecisive; puzzled.

    Just after the start of this dog, Mike Hosking’s dismal understudy Jack Tame put on his most serious face, dropped his voice an octave and, in a tone of perfect mock seriousness, asked his bearded Muslim guest: “What is it about Islam that lends itself to extremism?”

    I watched no more than that first question. I was in a hurry, but I’ve got better things to do than watch the irretrievably dim pretending to grapple with issues they have not bothered to give more than a moment’s study.

    More on Jack Tame….
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16072015/#comment-1044978

    • AmaKiwi 2.1
      26 August 2015 at 7:38 am

      “What is it about you Europeans that you detest the idea that people of the Middle East should rule themselves and profit from YOUR oil that somehow is under our sand?”

      Geobels in the Antipodes: Muslims are the cause of all modern wars: WW 1 and 2 (when they invaded France, Manchuria, Pearl Harbor), Korean War, Falklands, endless Latin American wars, . . .

      The Yanks have been endlessly busy stopping Muslim aggression.

      /sarc

    • gsays 2.2
      26 August 2015 at 8:24 am

      hi morrissey,
      “What is it about Islam that lends itself to extremism?”

      i think a far more enlightening question would be: what is it about commercial imperatives that make broadcasters present violent, frightening and grim stories that play on the fears and prejudices of the viewers?

      • tracey 2.2.1
        26 August 2015 at 9:25 am

        money honey… apparently fear = readership/viewership… but your question requires either;

        1. a level of introspection not capable
        2. a level of introspection set aside for the salary package and face on telly

  3. Morrissey 3
    26 August 2015 at 7:42 am

    Which would YOU call evil: killing people or viewing pornography?
    Now see which choice Paul Henry made.
    Paul Henry, TV3, Tuesday 26 August 2015

    depraved /dɪˈpreɪvd/ adj. morally corrupt; wicked.

    Shortly before 7 a.m., the following conversation occurred between the eponymous host and his “U.S. correspondent” Sandy Hughes….

    PAUL HENRY: Barack Obama’s right hand man Joe Biden may be running for president as more and more donors shy away from Hillary Clinton.

    SANDY HUGHES: He doesn’t have a scandal plaguing him but he does have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth.

    PAUL HENRY: All right, Jared Fogle the Subway guy. Evil man. We’ll only talk about him for a little while. Nasty man….

    So what has just happened here? Henry has mentioned four people—three of them are key figures in a regime carrying out massive war crimes abroad and harassing and imprisoning political dissenters in the United States. Yet the one he calls “evil” is the Subway guy.

    Sandy Hughes’ assertion that Biden “doesn’t have a scandal plaguing him” makes sense only if you don’t count his role in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis and Palestinians, not to mention his involvement in the bloody, failed, right wing insurrection in Venezuela.

    • Undecided 3.1
      26 August 2015 at 8:26 am

      The subway guy wasn’t just watching pornography you know, theres that little matter of child rape (allegedly) as well but I see the point you’re trying to make

      • Morrissey 3.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 9:21 am

        Sorry, I forgot that. He always struck me as creepy, I must admit, especially in the movie Supersize Me, when he tells a teenage girl that SHE has to change, and that there is no hope of ever controlling the junk food industry.

        Still, whatever crimes he has committed, he is Albert Schweitzer when compared to Clinton, Biden and Obama.

        • James 3.1.1.1
          26 August 2015 at 9:40 am

          Jesus Wept.

          Talk about supporting the Rape culture that a lot of people on the left decry .

          I guess some think its not so bad – as long as it helps score a point on a “righty”

          Morrissey: “Yet the one he calls “evil” is the Subway guy”

          Undecided: “The subway guy wasn’t just watching pornography you know, theres that little matter of child rape (allegedly) as well but I see the point you’re trying to make”

          Morrissey: “Sorry, I forgot that” ….. “Still, whatever crimes he has committed, he is Albert Schweitzer when compared to Clinton, Biden and Obama.”

          Personally – I find any predator of underage girls as about as evil as you can get.

          • Undecided 3.1.1.1.1
            26 August 2015 at 9:49 am

            I think what Morrissey is trying to say (and correct me if i’m wrong) is that while child rape is evil, starting a war and all the associated deaths is a greater evil due to the greater number affected

            • Morrissey 3.1.1.1.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 9:54 am

              He knows that perfectly well, my friend. He’s got some other agenda working here.

              • James …
                26 August 2015 at 10:15 am

                No Agenda.

                Buy you lose any credibility commenting about how bad “rape culture” is, and then minimising it because its not so bad as what other people have done.

                With the RoastBusters case – would you have been happy with a “oh well – he’s not as bad as someone who did something I think is worse”.

                But – far easier to blame me and an “agenda” than you to own your own bias.

                I guess if it was your daughter (if you have one), you wouldnt be so quick to minimise it.

                • Morrissey …
                  26 August 2015 at 10:45 am

                  You’re going to suggest the Roast Busters are on a par with President Suharto now, I suppose.

                  • weka …
                    26 August 2015 at 1:05 pm

                    Morrisey, men like yourself with limited understanding of rape culture don’t get to prioritise rape down the list according to your own values.

                    Forgetting that the person whose crimes you were minimising was an alleged child sex offender pretty much sums up the value of this conversation. Please stop using rape as an example to push your point, you’ve just made a complete mess of it and are being offensive.

                    • Morrissey …
                      26 August 2015 at 1:20 pm

                      Forgetting that the person whose crimes you were minimising

                      Whose crimes did I minimise?

                      You are either willfully obtuse or you are trying to be clever.

                      Neither is acceptable in a serious conversation. Have you thought of speaking to Paul Henry? Perhaps that’s more your level.

                    • weka …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:54 pm

                      Morrisey, men like yourself with limited understanding of rape culture don’t get to prioritise rape down the list according to your own values.

                      “Whose crimes did I minimise?”

                      Reread what I said, it’s pretty obvious what I am referring to.

                      Fuck off with all the rest of the dissembling and bullshit ad homs, I can’t be bothered.

                      edit, btw, the guy is known for using child porn, so your whole argument here is ignorant and misusing concepts of misogyny and rape culture. Please stop.

              • Undecided …
                26 August 2015 at 10:17 am

                I do think Jared Fogles crimes are evil (if proven) and as such he warrents being called evil

                • Morrissey …
                  26 August 2015 at 10:54 am

                  I agree with you, Undecided. My problem is with Paul “Kill them ALL” Henry calling HIM evil straight after he has mentioned Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

                  Perhaps even worse than that was his “U.S. correspondent” claiming that Biden, whose hands are bloodied with victims from South America to South Yemen, “doesn’t have a scandal plaguing him.”

          • Morrissey 3.1.1.1.2
            26 August 2015 at 9:53 am

            I condemn anyone who does what the Subway guy did.

            But it takes a special kind of moral imbecile to suggest that he is in the same league as Obama, Biden and Clinton.

            • James 3.1.1.1.2.1
              26 August 2015 at 10:18 am

              So right to the name calling – typical, and a sure sign you know you are wrong.

              And can you point exactly to where you condemned him in your post or reply?

              No – just a “I forgot about the child rape bit” – oh well – not as bad as xxxxxx

              • Morrissey …
                26 August 2015 at 10:44 am

                Maybe you are not a moral imbecile; it would be wrong for me, or anyone, to call you that if you are merely guilty of failing to express yourself clearly.

                Your ill-advised and rash attempt to suggest Jared Fogle’s crimes are on a par with those of three war criminals suggests that you are simply out of your depth.

                • James …
                  26 August 2015 at 11:23 am

                  “those of three war criminals”

                  Any evidence to back up your claim that they have even been charged with this? Or are you making accusations, and pretending it as “fact”?

            • vaughan little 3.1.1.1.2.2
              26 August 2015 at 2:40 pm

              it’s a chumps game, comparing evils. unless you were interviewing both obama and subway guy for a job and had to pick one of them. which you’re not.

          • North 3.1.1.1.3
            26 August 2015 at 5:50 pm

            James, unplugged, unhinged, weeping Jesus-like and paraphrased thus – “It is soooo churlish to focus on child murder. You should be ashamed Morrissey !”

  4. The lost sheep 4
    26 August 2015 at 7:46 am

    Paul/Morrissey,
    i get your point. The MSM are biased Right Wing imbeciles.

    So tell me. What do you think should be done about it?

    • Paul 4.1
      26 August 2015 at 8:35 am

      1. The setting up of a genuine national TV broadcaster with several channels.
      2. Support for local grassroots media.
      3. Not permitting the concentration of massive media companies though conglomeration.
      4. Regulations with teeth about impartiality.

      • The lost sheep 4.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 8:45 am

        “The setting up of a genuine national TV broadcaster with several channels.”
        How would you control the content of such channels?

        Support for local grassroots media.
        Any grassroots media, or grassroots media that had to meet some form of Govt. approval?

        Regulations with teeth about impartiality
        ‘Regulations’ is a big word. What would be the central details of such regulation?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1
          26 August 2015 at 8:53 am

          I have an idea for how content can be “controlled”.

          Reduce the number of adverts to zero.

          What’s with the authoritarian fantasies?

          As for impartiality, why reinvent the wheel when there are so many existing templates available? It may be rocket science to a sheep I guess…

          • The lost sheep 4.1.1.1.1
            26 August 2015 at 10:28 am

            Is Paul your alter ego OAB?

            But while you are here…
            Reducing ad’s to zero would eliminate commercial media? That would be the point of that ‘control’?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 10:33 am

              The only person talking about ‘control’ is you. It looks like you’re determined to spin a false authoritarian narrative around the subject.

              Boring and lame make bad entertainment, Sheep.

              • The lost sheep …
                26 August 2015 at 10:59 am

                I’m only asking questions OAB, and the ‘narrative’ will be the answers I receive.

                This blog is awash with daily criticism of the media, so why is it not a valid topic to ask what those who are constantly critical think could improve the situation?

                So why don’t you answer the question I asked you?
                How would removing ads “control” content?
                And what existing template for impartiality do you favour?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  26 August 2015 at 11:24 am

                  I’m only asking questions OAB,

                  No, you’re trying to manipulate people into saying that there will be political control over the media when you know damn well that we don’t support any sort of political control especially that of corporations and political parties.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    26 August 2015 at 1:59 pm

                    Bullshit McFlock.
                    The questions can be answered in anyway anyone chooses.
                    It is YOU who is making an assumption about the way people might answer.

                    All I can see at this point is that everyone who has replied has suggested they feel some change in the current media situation is desirable, but only Morrissey has indicated a willingness to freely discuss the topic…..

                    Given the amount of time spent criticising the state of the media on this blog, I have no idea why there is a reluctance to talk about ways to improve it?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 August 2015 at 2:49 pm

                      “Reducing ad’s to zero would eliminate commercial media? That would be the point of that ‘control’?”

                      That’s an example of your duplicity/stupidity.
                      It’s as if you’ve never heard of HBO…

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:00 pm

                      ‘Debate’ with you is like trying to catch a fart in a butterfly net.
                      You can hear and smell it, but there is nothing of substance to get hold of.

                      This discussion disturbs you doesn’t it?
                      You don’t want it be openly debated, and so you are attempted to derail it. Wonder why?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:09 pm

                      You get really snippy when someone illustrates your feeble character. Sheep are supposed to be more placid 😀

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:16 pm

                      Is that a constructive contribution to the discussion OAB, or is it just A POINTLESS PERSONAL ATTACK?

                      And do you intend to ARGUE THE POINT YOU MADE EARLIER and I REQUESTED YOU ANSWER, or are you just here like McFlock trying to shut down a discussion you don’t want to occur by using FLAMEWAR tactics?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:35 pm

                      You have heard of HBO, haven’t you?
                      You do realise it is commercial media?
                      Guess how many ads are on it. How often does it cut to a coke commercial, for example.

                      So presupposing the “elimination” of commercial media simply because of an ad-free channel, and then asking what the point of that would be, is a loaded question.

                      The discussion does not disturb me. But stupid fucks who think they can do a penny-ante pseudo-Socratic dialogue when even that is far beyond their level of competence? You lot just piss me off.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:52 pm

                      “So presupposing the “elimination” of commercial media simply because of an ad-free channel, and then asking what the point of that would be, is a loaded question”

                      No.
                      In response to a question I put to someone else, OAB stated that Media ‘Content could be controlled by reducing the number of adverts to zero’.,

                      I responded by asking him whether the point of that would be the elimination of commercial media. A question that could be very simply answered you would think?
                      ‘No’, if that is not what he meant, and a brief explanation of what he did mean.
                      Or ‘yes’ if that was his point.

                      But OAB declined to argue that point, or any other subsequent genuine points of discussion, but stayed engaged in order to make flamewar and pointless personal attack comments.

                      So as you and he seem to be interchangeable, maybe you have the integrity/balls to actually answer the simple question I asked?
                      Then the discussion could move past your FLAMEWAR…

                    • McFlock …
                      26 August 2015 at 4:10 pm

                      You were the only one who brought up the elimination of commercial media.

                      Only you.

                      HBO says no.

                      All subsequent questions are therefore bullshit.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 August 2015 at 4:32 pm

                      So you can’t confirm or deny the meaning of OAB’s statement?
                      Gee it must be sensitive stuff…..

                    • McFlock …
                      26 August 2015 at 4:49 pm

                      I can confirm for you that this statement:

                      I have an idea for how content can be “controlled”.

                      Reduce the number of adverts to zero.

                      In no way requires the elimination of commercial media.

                      It would, however, eliminate that particular broadcaster’s conflict of interest between news and advertising revenue. So it can be reported if Cadbury Creme Eggs are filled with dolphin sperm without any fear of losing advertising revenue.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 August 2015 at 5:36 pm

                      Rather than remaining placid,
                      Lost Sheep tried playing with acid,
                      But the goatfucker gambit’s,
                      The extent of his ambit,
                      Not so much placid as flaccid.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      27 August 2015 at 7:44 am

                      Yet another post that has no purpose other than being a Pointless Personal Attack OAB?

                      Huh?

                      “this site run for reasonably rational debate between dissenting viewpoints and we intend to keep it operating that way.

                      What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.”

                    • The lost sheep …
                      27 August 2015 at 7:48 am

                      @ McFlock
                      ( Eliminating ads) “In no way requires the elimination of commercial media.”

                      How would commercial entities then generate sufficient turnover to continue operating? I can’t see how any could be viable under those conditions?

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2
          26 August 2015 at 11:21 am

          How would you control the content of such channels?

          There’s these remarkable things called regulations. Perhaps you’ve heard of them?

          Any grassroots media, or grassroots media that had to meet some form of Govt. approval?

          Nope, just the regulations.

          What would be the central details of such regulation?

          Not allowed to spin, must report the truth (ie, report when the PM is lying using the word liar), ban advertising…

          There’s more that needs to be put in place and the whole lot needs good discussion.

          • The lost sheep 4.1.1.2.1
            26 August 2015 at 11:43 am

            You’ve confused me there Draco.
            You say in your first reply that “we don’t support any sort of political control especially that of corporations and political parties.’

            And then in your second reply you say that there must be ‘regulations’ and ‘more that needs to be put in place’

            So who is going to put these regulations in place and enforce them?

            And no, I am not trying to manipulate anybody into saying anything. I’m just keen to hear what it is people have to say.
            Or don’t want to say. I notice that both Paul and OAB started out with some statements and then refused to discuss their views any further. What is wrong with freely discussing this topic?

            • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 12:45 pm

              poor little sheep.

              The only form of administration he can imagine consists petty, partisan actions by corrupt lickspittles who corruptly abandon their duties of their office in order to score points against the opponents of their patrons. Folk like David Carter, for example.

              The idea of bureaucratic impartiality is alien to the sheep.

              • The lost sheep …
                26 August 2015 at 2:03 pm

                That’s complete and utter bullshit McFlock.
                If you have nothing of substance to offer to the discussion, why bother butting in with unsubstantiated allegations and pointless abuse?

                • McFlock …
                  26 August 2015 at 2:45 pm

                  What discussion? All you want is for people to answer your loaded questions without you offering anything yourself.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    26 August 2015 at 3:10 pm

                    I’m reasonably happy with the current situation McFlock, as I find I can very easily access all the information, comment and opinion I want from the whole spectrum of Political belief.
                    I consider most people in Western societies have much the same access.

                    But having noted an endless chorus of discontent with the situation from TS commentators, I’m genuinely interested in hearing what improvements commenters believe could be made?
                    When I hear what changes people are suggesting I will be happy to offer some further discussion of my own.

                    So what about you McFlock? Are you happy with the current environment the media operates in, or do you think there should be changes made to that?

                    As if you have any intention of making any constructive contribution to the discussion….apart from shutting it down.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 August 2015 at 3:49 pm

                      lol
                      So finally you offer something. That didn’t take much extraction at all /sarc

                      TV’s broadly ok, although maintaining the independence and impartiality of TVNZ requires constant vigilence, especially against this lot. I suspect a commercial-free free-to-air with a public-interest charter would be a good thing, though.

                      RadioNZ is pretty much the model – not perfect, but generally pretty good.

                      The real problem is print media and their clickbait “news” websites. These are fast plummeting in standards as the old media dies and the new media still barely funds investigations rather than fast turnaround gotcha numbers.

                      A new print/web news organisation is needed, but is generally against the interests of private capital. One that will investigate as well as recycle media releases from all and sundry, and provide intelligent, low-hype analyses rather than flustered pieces to camera.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      26 August 2015 at 4:31 pm

                      A new print/web news organisation is needed, but is generally against the interests of private capital. One that will investigate as well as recycle media releases from all and sundry, and provide intelligent, low-hype analyses rather than flustered pieces to camera.

                      10-15 years ago I would have agreed with you, but I suspect that this kind of model has already been superseded by the digital age, in that people now access information/comment/analysis from a diverse range of sources, many of which are completely independent of either govt. or commercial control.
                      This is the very reason the commercial print media are changing away from the traditional newspaper based model towards a more soundbite/entertainment snackbite?

                      But I’ll die in the ditch to retain the RNZ model, and wonder if in fact a partial solution to your suggestion above would be expand RNZ’s remit to cover a wider range of activity than present?
                      They already have John Campbell…

                    • McFlock …
                      26 August 2015 at 4:59 pm

                      The thing is that an awful lot of people still rely on the old media, because it serves everything up on a plate, one thing at a time. That’s the only advantage they have over clickbait websites.

                      Fairfax has made a clear policy decision to move into clickbait and centralise its content that then gets distributed to its regional papers, but then that’s the problem with purely capitalist incentives – sales over quality. I visited a few hours ago, and some celebrity teenager is talking about her sexual orientation. Yay for her, but damned if I know why it’s international news.

                      There is a public good in preserving an impartial public news service, even down to newspapers. Something like Big Issue, maybe, as the old media frontpiece to a full digital service.

          • AmaKiwi 4.1.1.2.2
            26 August 2015 at 2:33 pm

            Fox News was create by the abolition of the fair and balanced rule. (Not sure if that was precise name.) It told all US broadcasters that in return for being allowed to use the public airwaves, your news items must be fair and balanced. If the PM sounds off in a partisan way for 3 minutes, a spokesperson from the Opposition must get equal time.

            On the premise that the uncontrolled free market was the theme of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments (or both), Bill Clinton abolished this regulation.

            A similar regulation required a set amount of tv public service advertisements. Things like “carrots are good for you and Coke isn’t.”

            Such regulations are NOT difficult to write or enforce.

            • The lost sheep 4.1.1.2.2.1
              27 August 2015 at 7:59 am

              “Such regulations are NOT difficult to write or enforce”

              Not difficult to write….maybe.
              But enforce?
              Who sets the guidelines and does the enforcing? How do you ensure there is no political influence on that?
              But the big issues are how far down the tree you apply ‘fairness’, and how you dealt with comment and opinion.
              Would that mean if John Campbell ran an program on inequality critical of the Government – would someone would need to approve the content as fair as in factual? And would it then be required that a balance was provided in the form of a program from a RW journalist defending inequality as a necessary part of a healthy society?

    • Morrissey 4.2
      26 August 2015 at 9:16 am

      The MSM are biased Right Wing imbeciles

      That’s a fair description of Leighton Smith, Larry “Lackwit” Williams, Paul “Kill Them ALL” Henry and Mike “Contra” Hosking. But the rest of them, including Hosking’s catamite Jack Tame, are not so much right wing imbeciles as they are semi-conscious cogs in a machine of propaganda. These slaves often reveal that they are unhappy at having to read the drivel they are given, or—as has been so painfully obvious with Toni Street, Janika Ter Ellen and Perlina Lau—to play the part of simpering offsider to the alpha male.

      So tell me. What do you think should be done about it?

      They should be confronted whenever they reflexively parrot official lies. Glenn Greenwald does this all the time. Here he is schooling a state servant:

      And so does John Pilger, who in 2008 tried to school an appallingly glib, misinformed and clueless Jim Mora….

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/1361626/feature-interview-john-pilger

      • The lost sheep 4.2.1
        26 August 2015 at 11:03 am

        Confronting the media (as occurs at present) is the only measure that needs to be taken Morrissey?

        You don’t see any other changes needed to the current situation?

        • Morrissey 4.2.1.1
          26 August 2015 at 11:12 am

          No, of course it’s not the only thing. But it’s still very important, and it’s a shame that every journalist and activist doesn’t confront the likes of Stephen Sackur or Kirsty Wark or Jim Mora. The media are a de facto arm of government, and they play a crucial role in trivializing public discourse, promoting numbskulls like Hosking, Henry, Leighton Smith and Larry Williams and in largely excluding voices such as Greenwald and, in this country, Gordon Campbell, Jon Stevenson and Nicky Hager.

          • The lost sheep 4.2.1.1.1
            26 August 2015 at 11:34 am

            “No, of course it’s not the only thing.”
            What other things do you see as being necessary?

            After reading many many posts from you on the topic of the media, I’m genuinely interested to know what changes you think would improve the situation.
            But I get the distinct feeling this is a topic that some here don’t want to see freely discussed!

            • Morrissey 4.2.1.1.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 11:46 am

              Sorry Sheep, but I’m just on my way out so I can’t write a decent reply to your excellent points. I’ll return to it, perhaps tomorrow.

              But for now, my short answer is this: we need a constitutionally guaranteed free press, and we need to prevent politicians interfering with and controlling the media. It’s not an accident that a National Party stooge has been installed at Maori TV and almost immediately all its best journalists have exited the station, that John Campbell has been replaced by that embarrassing gruesome twosome, that Q+A and The Nation are not worth watching, that we see—and worse, hear—Paul Henry and Mike Hosking every morning and night, but rarely if ever see or hear from smart, informed commentators.

              But more later, my friend.

        • Stuart Munro 4.2.1.2
          27 August 2015 at 1:33 am

          A serious public interest blended news service could be established. Get real journalistic talent to moderate and design it – Gordon Campbell, Kim Hill, the academic journalism schools and maybe a constitutional or commercial lawyer. The BBC is the original model, having spawned both Radio NZ and Al Jazeera. A real tech head might have an idea or two too.

    • AmaKiwi 4.3
      26 August 2015 at 9:22 am

      “The MSM are biased Right Wing imbeciles.”

      We wish they were imbeciles because they would be ineffective. The sad truth is they are damn clever.

      • Morrissey 4.3.1
        26 August 2015 at 9:42 am

        I appreciate your point, AmaKiwi. However, I urge you to watch the clip I posted of Glenn Greenwald confronting that pathetic state servant. Which one is clever, and which one is embarrassingly out of his depth?

        The right wing has power and dominates the media, which operate effectively as the propaganda arm of the state. That applies in this country as much as it does in Britain or Australia or Canada or Qatar. But that doesn’t mean they are clever, it just means they hold power. As the late Bruce Jesson used to point out, the Business Round Table always got treated with respect, not because their publications were any good—they were in fact intellectually barren—but because they emanated from a powerful lobby that would not be ignored.

        I guess we need to be much more careful about the way we hurl around epithets. Stephen Sackur is not an imbecile. Indeed, sometimes even our own Paul Henry and Mike Hosking are capable of rising above the level of moral imbecile and performing the role of decent journalist.

        I’ve been one of the worst offenders probably, and I’ve tried recently to tone down my language when talking about these people. Real journalists—as opposed to stenographers and robots like Simon Dallow—and progressive thinkers don’t need to label them with pejorative terms like “toady” and “lackey” and “imbecile”; far better to patiently, politely and persistently confront them when they lapse into lazy recital of official lies. John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald, Nicky Hager, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein consistently confront hapless recyclers of official cant; there’s no reason we can’t do the same. A good start would be to protest every time you hear a broadcaster call Garth The Knife McVicar a “victim’s rights advocate.”

        • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1
          26 August 2015 at 11:28 am

          The right wing has power and dominates the media, which operate effectively as the propaganda arm of the state.

          No they don’t. They operate as the propaganda arm of the corporations and attack the state.

          • Morrissey 4.3.1.1.1
            26 August 2015 at 11:37 am

            No, that’s not quite right. Take the case of New Zealand for instance: the state (i.e. the Key regime) utilized the media—from snarling attack dogs such as Whaleoil and Mike Hosking to hapless churnalists like Greg Boyed at TVNZ—to attack the democratic, civil institutions of the state, like the independent judiciary and hospitals and schools and the right of citizens to privacy.

            The state—-i.e. the regime in power—-is effectively at war with its people. The corporate media play a crucial part in that power struggle.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 2:28 pm

              The state—-i.e. the regime in power—-is effectively at war with its people.

              Although the regime in power is, as you say, at war with the people the regime in power is not the state. The ‘state’ is the people.

              That ‘regime’ is the political arm of the corporations as Labour used to be the political arm of the unions (but is now the other political arm of the corporations).

        • AmaKiwi 4.3.1.2
          26 August 2015 at 2:42 pm

          @ Morrissey

          Past geniuses of propaganda include Goebels, Napoleon, Caesar, and a thousand others. Try to find ways to refute them. It’s all the opposition can ever do.

          • Colonial Viper 4.3.1.2.1
            26 August 2015 at 2:49 pm

            Freud and Edward Bernays – the Americans really perfected the art of modern mass propaganda in the 1910’s, then turned it to commercial use on Madison Avenue in the 1920’s.

            Goebbels was an avid student of Bernay’s 1928 book “Propaganda.”

            • greywarshark 4.3.1.2.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 4:44 pm

              That’s a little nest of information that everybody should keep handy. Pavlov too pehaps – all very important once it had been found how plastic human minds and beliefs can be. Scientology too. And the cults of the 1980s and the deprogramming methods used to try and break new beliefs.
              edited

        • Rodel 4.3.1.3
          26 August 2015 at 9:39 pm

          “Morrisey-“sometimes even our own Paul Henry and Mike Hosking are capable of rising above the level of moral imbecile and performing the role of decent journalist.”
          I wait with bated breath.

    • tracey 4.4
      26 August 2015 at 9:26 am

      nothing. We must all just go back to sleep

  5. Ben 5
    26 August 2015 at 8:22 am

    Looks like the Herald DigiPoll has pretty much confirmed the recent Roy Morgan results. Nats still up at 50.5%, Lab/Greens split has changed (breathing space for Little..?), but still weak on the left.

    • Undecided 5.1
      26 August 2015 at 8:42 am

      I don’t know who the media person is for Labour but I’d be getting on the phone and asking for a please explain as to why Jacinda Ardern and not Andrew Little is shown in the article

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11502827

      • Olwyn 5.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 9:00 am

        I agree. It is meddlesome and offensive to put someone who is not Labour’s leader alongside Key to illustrate an article of that kind. Imagine the squawk if instead of Key they put Judith Collins to illustrate an article about a poll.

      • tracey 5.1.2
        26 August 2015 at 9:28 am

        Isn’t it obvious why?

        Little shouldn’t be leader.

        The machine rolls on.

        • Undecided 5.1.2.1
          26 August 2015 at 9:59 am

          Is that the msm or party insiders destabilising Andrew Little?

          • McFlock 5.1.2.1.1
            26 August 2015 at 12:49 pm

            I’d go for the dirty politics MSM.

            They’ve not had much luck with the “angry andy” line, so plan B is to build up a competitor and hope they make a tilt for the leadership.

            Robertson’s gone out of his way to show loyalty after the leadership election, so the next in line is Ardern. I suspect she has too much integrity to fall for that trap though.

            • Undecided 5.1.2.1.1.1
              26 August 2015 at 1:00 pm

              Well hopefully whoevers in charge of things like that gets on the phone sharpish and ensures Andrew Littles face is put out there

              • McFlock …
                26 August 2015 at 1:19 pm

                nah.

                That would just be portrayed as panic in the face of caucus discontent.

                If the herald want to keep building up individual loyal caucus members in the eyes of the electorate, winwin for labour.

                Such a shame for the tories that chris carter and shane joones are no longer in caucus, boohoo lol

                • Undecided …
                  26 August 2015 at 1:24 pm

                  Damned if you do damned if you don’t but I think Andrew Little needs to get his face out there more

          • Naturesong 5.1.2.1.2
            26 August 2015 at 1:27 pm

            Thats the point of the article

          • AmaKiwi 5.1.2.1.3
            26 August 2015 at 2:45 pm

            @ Undecided

            “Is that the msm or party insiders destabilising Andrew Little?”

            You can always count on the msm. I suspect 90% of the time they are just using party insiders.

      • James 5.1.3
        26 August 2015 at 9:44 am

        Perhaps its because they can read.

        The graphic says “preferred PM” – and the caption says “The rising popularity of Labour front bench MP Jacinda Ardern is evident in the latest Herald DigiPoll survey.”

      • Charles 5.1.4
        26 August 2015 at 11:05 am

        I think they must’ve taken this poll at around 4:20pm. Whoever thinks Helen is coming back to rule the roost, her popularity is up 1.6% from the last time they were asked. Also, here is picture of Jacinda. She woman. John man. Like? Random percentage. Tautology. Press send. Story done. Pick up pay check.

        It’s a hard-knock life for Audrey,
        It’s a hard-knock life for Audrey,
        doo do do
        be do be
        do doo doo
        doo be doo…

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      26 August 2015 at 12:07 pm

      Ah, now I know why the MSM have been talking up Adern’s popularity over the last couple of days – to put another spanner in the works of Labour.

    • tracey 6.1
      26 August 2015 at 9:32 am

      Stock markets are, as you know, cyclic. This is why it was STUPID of this government to stop putting money into Cullen Fund when stocks were low. The low time buy ups counteract the high times costs. Buy high and Low and it levels out over time.

      IF you are in Mutual Funds for the short game you need to balance your portfolio with more govt bonds, cash etc.

      Stock markets, imo, are the intellectual snobs of gambling. A kind of casino if you will.

      smoke and mirrors but those on the inside or with huge amounts to play with get advantages and to that extent the size of the Cullen Fund and some kiwisaver funds makes them like insiders.

    • les 6.2
      26 August 2015 at 11:43 am

      where can this be verified?…’New Zealand has about $ 122 billion of derivatives on its book (and yes all of them high risk gambling ones)’

  7. travellerev 7
    26 August 2015 at 9:36 am

    On Raglan radio in the next few minutes. <a href="http://www.raglanradio.com/Life stream from here

  8. The Chairman 8
    26 August 2015 at 9:50 am

    Planned Parenthood Defends Selling Fetuses To KFC?

    http://dailycurrant.com/2015/08/05/planned-parenthood-defends-selling-fetuses-to-kfc/

    New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

    https://youtu.be/H4UjIM9B9KQ

    • McFlock 8.1
      26 August 2015 at 12:53 pm

      That does explain why KFC never tastes as good as it did when I was a kid lol

    • Lindsey 8.2
      26 August 2015 at 1:05 pm

      This attack on Planned Parenthood has been well discredited. They do not sell body parts. Women have the option of donating fetal tissue for medical research. All legal and above board. This is an edited video of a set up of similar style to the “Acorn” phony scandal which has also been discredited.

  9. Morrissey 9
    26 August 2015 at 10:36 am

    Open letter from the Flag Consideration Panel

    E ngā suckers.

    We want to thank everyone for the 10,292 designs you’ve suggested. Each of these was viewed by every Panel member—which gives the lie to the nasty allegations swirling around that this Panel is nothing but a sinecure for a bunch of nobodies who lacked the integrity to say no to putting their undistinguished names to a farcical vanity project for a frivolous and contemptible Prime Minister. We were, moreover, not impressed with the large number of “satirical” designs, such as the now infamous “laser Kiwi”, which were obviously intended to devalue this very serious process and to waste the Panel’s valuable time.

    In reviewing flag designs, first and foremost, we were guided by what an average attendance of four Kiwis—thank you to the tireless local National Party branches throughout the country!—across a range of communities told us when they shared what is special to them about New Zealand.

    The message was clear: you don’t really care. Many people wrote in saying: “Keep the Flag, change the Prime Minister”, but the Panel did not find that helpful. Others claimed that this panel was a collection of hand-picked dullards that have the aesthetic sense of a kick in the head, and the historic appreciation of a goldfish. Again, we did not appreciate this kind of feedback or find it helpful.

    In finalising the long list we invited a number of cultural (including tikanga), vexillology (the study of flags), art and design experts to talk to us. These experts really impressed the Flag Consideration Panel, as can be seen by their comments: “That was really interesting” (Sir Brian Lochore, ONZ, KNZM, OBE); “Wow, just wow” (Beatrice Faumuina, ONZM); “That was so cool” (Julie Christie, ONZM) and “Really interesting” (Stephen Jones).

    As a Panel, we’ve been appointed by government to determine the 4 alternative flag designs in a neutral, non-expert and unbiased way. We are committed to doing that.

    We encourage you to make sure you are enrolled to vote so that you can take part in this nationally significant process. We certainly hope you show more enthusiasm than you did when you failed to come to our heavily advertised consultation meetings.

    Ngā mihi nui kia suckers.

    Regards,

    Flag Consideration Panel:

    Prof John Burrows (Chair), ONZM, QC
    Nicky Bell
    Peter Chin, CNZM
    Julie Christie, ONZM
    Rod Drury
    Kate De Goldi (Deputy Chair)
    Beatrice Faumuina, ONZM
    Lt Gen (Rtd) Rhys Jones, CNZM
    Stephen Jones
    Sir Brian Lochore, ONZ, KNZM, OBE
    Malcolm Mulholland
    Hana O’Regan.

    https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/the-nz-flag-your-chance-to-decide/open-letter/

  10. The Chairman 10
    26 August 2015 at 11:18 am

    More staff earning $100,000-plus at Wellington City Council

    It is the first time the council has included the lowest pay rates alongside the highest in the annual report.

    However, the council’s lowest paid workers, such as cleaners, were contractors and therefore not included in the figures and not eligible for the $18.40 wage.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/71406973/more-staff-earning-100000plus-at-wellington-city-council

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      26 August 2015 at 12:10 pm

      Government should not be using contractors for routine tasks as it just adds costs to the budget.

      • maui 10.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 2:09 pm

        A bit late for that now. We’ve got entire companies contracted out to service water, drainage, parks, parking etc for Councils. A completely unsustainable model.

    • Tracey 10.2
      26 August 2015 at 12:18 pm

      and I s’pose the contracts are shrouded under commerical confidentially so we cant see them.

  11. weka 11
    26 August 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Seeing as how imbecile seems to be the word of the day, how about we look at what it means.

    imbecile |ˈɪmbɪsiːl|
    noun informal
    a stupid person.

    ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (as an adjective in the sense [physically weak] ): via French from Latin imbecillus, literally ‘without a supporting staff,’ from in- (expressing negation) + baculum ‘stick, staff.’ The current sense dates from the early 19th cent.

    As with so many of our perjoratives they are derived from physical or other kind of disability and a time when putting people down for that was the norm.

    I kind of like the idea of an imbecile being someone who lacks the support for their argument, not least because that would include Morrissey for part of today’s debate 😉

    • Morrissey 11.1
      26 August 2015 at 1:24 pm

      Someone who supports Paul “Kill them ALL” Henry is ill advised in the extreme to lecture others about the use of pejorative language.

      • weka 11.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 3:57 pm

        I agree but seeing as how I don’t support Paul Henry, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Your implication is boring and a dishonest way of debating. Up your game.

        Besides, I like a good pejorative, it’s all about how it gets used.

  12. AmaKiwi 12
    26 August 2015 at 2:54 pm

    NZ Herald: (Chinese) Stock Exchange Boss Kidnapped by Angry Investors.

    Is that why Tim Groser is always overseas?

  13. BR 13
    26 August 2015 at 3:09 pm

    PLEASE !

    These Facebook posts regarding ” Due Authority” and a ” NZ Constitution ” and the Flag and the TPPA and ‘Geoffery Palmers ‘ ( sic ) that are EVERYWHERE on facebook at the moment … seemingly sane people are ‘sharing’ and re-posting this garbage … (example below ) ..is there nobody who can HELP ?

    Talk about giving The Left a bad name …sigh

    Example :

    “”Hey, don’t mean to to freak y’all out (actually, yes I do!) but there’s a lot more to this NZ flag change malarkey than most people realise…

    I was open to changing the current NZ flag, but I also didn’t understand (like most people) the LEGAL significance of doing so…

    Why not change the flag?

    Here’s why not – its called ‘Due Authority’

    DUE AUTHORITY in a nation like NZ is represented on the NZ flag by the Union Jack and signifies that we are a constitutional monarchy.

    A change of flag means not only that we have taken a major step to removing the DUE AUTHORITY of the crown. It also means we take away the very power which enforces both the 1981 Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing NZ has to an entrenched Constitution) and the founding plank upon which the Treaty of Waitangi has meaning.

    It does not matter if you’re pro or anti monarchy but if you take away the DUE AUTHORITY of law (which includes our flag) you then open the gates of hell, or to be precise the means in which John Key can legally sign the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement). Currently if the matter was taken to court it would undoubtedly end up at the Supreme Court.

    The Privy Council is our former chief court and unlike the new US-styled NZ supreme Court, has its legal interpretation interpreted by Judges that are picked by the Law Lords of the Common Wealth.
    In the new system those Judges are picked by parliament – uh oh.

    At the moment it is likely that a legal challenge could be mounted against the TPPA, even if John does sign it, even with the Supreme Court Change, in that it breaches the 1981 Bill of Rights and the Crowns obligation to Iwi as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi.

    However, if the DUE AUTHORITY of the State can be removed then the TPPA can not only be signed but it then means that once signed the DUE AUTHORITY of the TPPA would supersede the power of any NZ laws already in place. Such as the 1981 Bill of Rights etc.””

    Please feel free to copy & paste or share… A lot of people don’t seek education but will take it when offered! ”

    ARRGGHHH !!!

    • James 13.1
      26 August 2015 at 3:40 pm

      Yep – its hilarious.

      Generally my friends are all “righties” and have not shared it on facebook – but have seen it posted in a number of other places.

      It makes me worry about people.

      I think it harms the anti – TPPA message as opposed to the left in general.

      • BR 13.1.1
        26 August 2015 at 4:54 pm

        Hmmm yes , that’s a good point ( Harms the anti-TPPA more ) .

        I try to refute this every time I see it but it’s a bit like proving the Easter Bunny isn’t real .
        “Prove it ‘s not true !” people demand … but where do I start ?
        ( This is a serious question by the way ! )

        Sigh

    • Ad 13.2
      26 August 2015 at 4:53 pm

      You sound like a constitutional expert.

      Could you show how removing the Union Jack affects the Bill of Rights Act?

      • BR 13.2.1
        26 August 2015 at 5:26 pm

        I don’t think it does .
        I’m appalled and angry at this misinformation and i’m asking for help in refuting it .

        • McFlock 13.2.1.1
          26 August 2015 at 9:00 pm

          all you can do is correct people when they bring out the nuttiness.
          but sadly the nuttiness will always exist.

  14. Ad 14
    26 August 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Interesting to see even the great Alpha Coal filing for bankruptcy, together with every other major coal miner in the US.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-gottesdiener/coal-dethroned_b_8038100.html

    Killed by cheap gas from fracking, this is the energy industry’s complete regime change.

    Huge and terrible foresight of what will happen to the Australian producers, let alone New Zealand’s little ones.

  15. Smilin 15
    26 August 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Someone should remind Key that it has been his responsibility for 6 years for the democratic governance of this country, and not to change the rules to suit a certain group in society at the detriment of others especially when it comes to the up keep of state housing so that the people who live here that have a limited ability to change countries or income at will deserve a standard of housing traditionally comparable to the first state houses built for the purpose of decent housing for all
    And his constant blaming of the previous Labour govt for the present situation in housing is such that he should be held in contempt by all NZers as he is a leader of a govt unfit to govern this country
    In short give the prick the boot

  16. Smilin 16
    26 August 2015 at 5:53 pm

    I dont hear any guns firing at the country apart from the ensuing take over of the country thru the TPPA “At the 11th hour ”
    Finlayson, you need a boot up your arrogant pseudo legal backside and be held for treason for action against the nations democracy

  17. North 17
    26 August 2015 at 7:41 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11503343

    The grossness of The Ponce Key knows no bounds…..this after seven years of holding the ultimate of power in New Zealand, this effete, variously whining/giggling little boy, STILL insisting he has no responsibility for ANY of it ???

    At the start it was coquettish, now it’s contempt, unabashed. Such a fraud !

  18. Gabby 18
    26 August 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Is Ponyboy saying the $700 million on income-related rents goes to Housing NZ?

  19. greywarshark 19
    26 August 2015 at 8:16 pm

    What it was like in Britain’s ‘welfare’ system in the 1980s when Sue Townsend was a mother needing money while she brought up her three very young children.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/13/adrian-mole-sue-townsend-welfare

    She died this year of a heart attack aged 68. The Guardian obituary is affectionate.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/11/sue-townsend-1946-2014

    Are you a John Clarke fan? I don’t know if everyone heard Jesse Mulligan on Radionz on Monday arvo having a good old chin wag with him.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201767742

    John has something in Ripcurl I think and has written about his mother Neva in the magazine for NZ writing Overland.
    https://overland.org.au/current-issue/

  20. North 20
    26 August 2015 at 8:48 pm

    “Mr Little: Did the state house he grew up in have mould and leaks, and is it okay for kids today to live in mouldy, leaky, cold state houses because of lack of maintenance?

    Mr Key: No, not from memory. Obviously, the house would have been much more modern back then, given it was so many decades ago. But also I will say that my mother took absolute pride in making sure that she kept the house clean, tidy, and ventilated.”

    Ummh……the small matter of the mould in that poor family’s home starting with an unremedied leak from the bathroom of an adjoining unit, you lying shithead.

    The Ponce Key mangles the meaning of our language again……Labour “passing the buck….” – to the man who’s been the prime minister for seven years ?????

    • whateva next? 20.1
      26 August 2015 at 9:10 pm

      “I will say that my mother took absolute pride in making sure that she kept the house clean, tidy, and ventilated.”
      I was disgusted by this retort in the election debate, and cannot believe he is still using this line. It reveals his level of detachment with real New Zealanders, and his utter contempt fao any less well off than himself, which is ironically “the vast majority of Nuzillanders”

    • greywarshark 20.2
      27 August 2015 at 9:35 am

      Well ventilated is a problem in winter, or anytime it is cold, and if you live in an area of poor people with young people looking for something to steal opening windows and ventilating may result in your goods being circulated as well as your air. Getting through open windows is well within the roaming, anomic youths’ area of expertise. Yesterday I heard on Radionz about a 90 year old woman who had been cleaned out of all her taonga some with special memories.

      Putting sliding window safety catches on at least one opening window per room would help. But it requires tools and some expertise and they cost at least $10 each. Would NZ Stateless Housing regard that as important to spend on? Would doing it yourself be regarded as defacing the house if some paint got chipped or a tool slipped and broke a window pane? Even paying for and trying DIY improvements like that could result in disadvantage.

      Open a window when it’s cold, and the house gets colder. If there is heating going, much of it might be lost in the draught created.

      The philosophy of National, Act and the RWs who lurk in the shadows of Labour Party: People in nice houses worth millions can have perfectly balanced heating or cooling organised, suitable for the weather. That is okay because they are exceptional people, and deserving of everything they want because they are so good, clever, hard working etc. The people who aren’t just have to suffer the indignities of begging to have reasonable housing and living conditions as would be expected in a modern, prosperous nation.