Running scared

32 comments on “Running scared ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Phil 1

   16 April 2008 at 5:08 pm

   So, let me get this straight… the Standard and its authors are quite happy to get stuck into the media when they parrot the releases of National party officials/supporters/hangers-on, but is more than happy to perpetuate said ‘cycle’ when its from NZF or anyone attaking the Nats?

   Weak.

   [lprent: see http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1688#comment-28758%5D
2. insider 2

   16 April 2008 at 5:10 pm

   Hmm, National votes to prevent a set up debate by NZF/Lab. Shock horror. Will the politics never stop?
3. Scribe 3

   16 April 2008 at 5:34 pm

   Phil,

   I was going to quote The Standard back at themselves for the hypocrisy you outline, but now I needn’t bother. Suffice it to say any anti-National spin is true, any anti-Labour spin is the MSM being in the tank for National and lacking any journalistic integrity.

   I enjoy a good debate, but this is all becoming a little bit “same story, same story”.

   [lprent: Scribe – a gentle warning.

   Attributing a common mind to the posters on this blog makes about as much sense as trying to herd cats. There isn’t one and I don’t appreciate people trying to say that there is one. I class that as an assault on this multi-poster blog. That is something I take quite seriously and personally. I also take what I consider is the appropiate action.

   What the posters choose to put up is pretty much their own business. Unless of course I think that they’ve strayed over the line. That has only happened once.

   The only common elements you could say about them is that they lean to the left and green, and their writing keeps improving (in my opinion). The commentators are quite a bit more diverse, but they keep coming back so the posters must be doing something right.]
4. simon coffey 4

   16 April 2008 at 5:39 pm

   So National (or should I say Johnboy)only wants to debate\deal with issues they are comfortable with !

   Doesn’t bode well if thet have the offices of government and something out of the blue happens to the country!

   Sounds slippery to me…
5. Scribe 5

   16 April 2008 at 5:48 pm

   Nice work Simon. Toeing that Standard line beautifully.

   Sorry to break up your little party, but let’s look at some facts.

   FACT #1: Here’s what Winston said: “We in New Zealand First believe that the issue is of such importance to require it to be urgently addressed by the House.’

   FACT #2: NZF, with one question in the House each of the last two days, haven’t used either of them to address this issue of such importance.

   captcha: singing often (Dyson, Mackey, Chadwick and Street?)

   [lprent: see my comment on http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1688#comment-28758%5D
6. insider 6

   16 April 2008 at 5:49 pm

   Leave is asked for and denied routinely for debates on a range of issues, often by the government. This is as much a story as the dozens of other times it has happened this parliament.

   i note the source is a Peter’s press release. Is this a credible source normally?
7. burt 7

   16 April 2008 at 7:13 pm

   Simon

   So National (or should I say Johnboy)only wants to debate\deal with issues they are comfortable with !

   Wharrrrp – Thanks for playing. It’s probably because somebody from Labour who would be extremely uncomfortable during a debate on that subject wasn’t in the house. Timing is everything.

   However as Scribe said; “Nice work Simon. Toeing that Standard line beautifully.” just a pity neither you or the standard engaged your brains before firing off random denigration. ghostwhowalks3 tested this line of attack on kiwiblog last night and it didn’t fly there either.
8. randal 8

   16 April 2008 at 7:18 pm

   none of these posts so far has addressed the original post…i.e. why did National not want to debate the sale of Auckland Airport in parliament when they were offered the chance. Why is that? Is it because their whole asset sale programme would be exposed or was it because their partial asset sale programme would be exposed?
9. burt 9

   16 April 2008 at 7:20 pm

   randal

   Perhaps you missed my post while you were typing? I think the logical answer is the one I provided. Were all Labour party people who were involved in making the rules up as they went along in the house yesterday?
10. Dean 10

    16 April 2008 at 7:53 pm

    Lynn:

    “Attributing a common mind to the posters on this blog makes about as much sense as trying to herd cats. There isn’t one and I don’t appreciate people trying to say that there is one. I class that as an assault on this multi-poster blog. That is something I take quite seriously and personally. I also take what I consider is the appropiate action.”

    With all due respect, I think you need to take a step back and harden up.

    Many is the time that the posters here have trotted out statistics or charts skewed in one direction and then failed to debate their shortcomings. If they’re going to put it out there, then why shouldn’t it be debated in an adult manner?

    Why is calling this blogs authors to task in terms of bias a bad thing? They’re largely just as guilty of it as any other blog. Of course there are some exceptions – Tane and Rob are pretty even handed and are prepared to debate issues intelligently – but if you expect people to treat posts by Steve or Irish the same way them I’m afraid you’re fooling yourself.

    Having said that, I think the bans and/or warnings issued by this blog (except for IrishBill, who doesn’t seem to like to be reminded of his own comments) have been fair and justified.
11. burt 11

    16 April 2008 at 7:55 pm

    What Dean said.

    [lprent: site is here for comment, not voting. Don’t waste bandwidth]
12. randal 12

    16 April 2008 at 8:24 pm

    burt…what did dean say? as far as I can see it was just a whole lot of blather to fill up some space and confuse people who read it because it basically says nothing…justa whole lot of words about something totALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL… no meat and NO potatoes either.
13. burt 13

    16 April 2008 at 8:29 pm

    randal

    So no further comment from you on the topic of this thread then?
14. lprent 14

    16 April 2008 at 8:56 pm

    “Many is the time that the posters here have trotted out statistics or charts skewed in one direction and then failed to debate their shortcomings. If they’re going to put it out there, then why shouldn’t it be debated in an adult manner?”

    Exactly. Comment on the post. Comment on the poster’s tendencies and viewpoints (robustly, but politely is effective).

    However don’t comment as if the poster is the same as the other posters. That is implicitly what is happening when people start talking about “The Standard” having a viewpoint. Each poster is a distinct individual (as you pointed out), treat them as such.

    Personally I’ve been a individual all of my life. I’m not about to subhumed by a label.
15. r0b 15

    16 April 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Wharrrrp – Thanks for playing. It’s probably because somebody from Labour who would be extremely uncomfortable during a debate on that subject wasn’t in the house. Timing is everything.

    Ahh Burt, I do enjoy your political insights. Maybe you should try for a grant from Creative NZ or something.

    So tell me, which Labour member (who wasn’t in the house) do you think would be made extremely uncomfortable during a debate on that subject, and why?
16. Phil 16

    16 April 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Lynn,

    I disagree with your viewpoint. The posters on this site have made repeated insinuation and intrigue about the nature of National Party politicians (to be fair, as well as others) and the associations they may or may not hold with others.

    I think it is naive that you would then be suprised to see the same level of connection made between Steve, Tane, AYB and so on.
17. Pascal's bookie 17

    16 April 2008 at 9:22 pm

    It sure is funny how rightwingers, who babble on about their individuality, all make the same mistake, alluded to by Iprent, in thinking that lefties are a borg.

    Clue: That whole very funny thing in “The Life of Brian” about splitters and the “Judean People’s Popular Front”?

    It’s a dead on portrayal of how 5 leftwingers will naturally form about 12 groups with about 20 viewpoints and strategies for moving forward towards the glorious day.

    Anyone who starts a sentence “you lefties all…” or “we lefties must…” can be safely ignored.

    Captcha: once zapata. heh.
18. Matthew Pilott 18

    16 April 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Fuck off Pascal, we’re the People’s Front of Judea!

    Judean People’s Front? Bloody hell.
19. Dennis 19

    16 April 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Each poster is a distinct individual

    I’m not…
20. Dean 20

    16 April 2008 at 9:58 pm

    randal:

    “burt what did dean say? as far as I can see it was just a whole lot of blather to fill up some space and confuse people who read it because it basically says nothing justa whole lot of words about something totALLY INCONSEQUENTIAL no meat and NO potatoes either.”

    If what I wrote confused anyone then I would suggest that they have severe written comprehension defecit. Obviously you understood it, but I find it interesting that you didn’t choose to debate it at all, and instead denegrate it.

    You are aware of the gross discrepencies between some of the charts posted here and the interpretation of them, aren’t you?
21. lprent 21

    16 April 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Phil: You are comparing a Apple computer with a BigMac. A formally structured political party with a ad-hoc net coop.

    The only thing that was particularly deliberate about the way this blog was setup, was accepting that it would have different posters. It isn’t an organisation, it is a cooperative sharing resources. If we ever actually got together we’d listen and argue with each other, eventually agreeing to disagree and working on the things we do agree on. It is the way of the net and of the modern left (and of MMP).

    The posters (from their writing) do tend to share a distrust of ‘right’. But that is hardly surprising when you consider that it was a activist left-leaners asking other activists if they’d like to write posts for a blog. Any coherence you see in the posts by different authors comes from that start point.

    There is none of the formal structure of a political party, newspaper, corporation or institution that is designed to bring about a common policy. It is quite legit to talk about an organisation of that type as if it does have a collective policy (or lack of). A multi-author blog like this isn’t a ‘person’ in any way that I’m aware, legally or otherwise. Address the posts and the posters, not the medium.

    BTW: Pascal’s Bookie just described the ‘left’ that I know 🙂 The strange thing is that it usually works, in much the same way that the net does
22. outofbed 22

    16 April 2008 at 10:41 pm

    what has labour ever done for us?
23. Scribe 23

    17 April 2008 at 9:14 am

    lprent,

    Thanks for that “gentle warning”. I take your point about the authors all being individuals; I didn’t refer simply to Steve’s post because the hypocrisy I outlined is evident in more than just one poster.

    I endorse Dean’s comments above that there are certainly Standard authors who I enjoy engaging in discussions with, while I find others’ attitudes irrational and difficult to follow. Oh, and sometimes hypocritical.

    [lprent: So address the posts and the posters. Argue the facts or ignore the posts.]
24. Occasional Observer 24

    17 April 2008 at 9:35 am

    lprent:

    You’re acting like a control freak. Since when is it against the rules to point out that the Standard’s posters share common attributes–like them being universally obsessed with John Key?

    Admit it, Lyn, this website was set up for one purpose, and one purpose alone: to denigrate John Key. Your defence of that is facile, and you’re just being overly precious.

    [lprent: All of the posters do?
    The purpose of the blog is set out in the top left corner of the main page.
    I suppose that you are now going to tell me that Key is in love with the labour movement?
    Don’t make yourself look too daft.]
25. Matthew Pilott 25

    17 April 2008 at 11:32 am

    Occasional Observer is unable to distinguish cause from effect.
26. Scribe 26

    17 April 2008 at 2:05 pm

    [lprent: So address the posts and the posters. Argue the facts or ignore the posts.]

    I did…

    “Sorry to break up your little party, but let’s look at some facts.

    FACT #1: Here’s what Winston said: “We in New Zealand First believe that the issue is of such importance to require it to be urgently addressed by the House.’

    FACT #2: NZF, with one question in the House each of the last two days, haven’t used either of them to address this issue of such importance.”

    … and no one responded.

    I wonder why that is? Hmmmmm

    [lprent: The reason I added to your comment previously, was because you’d attributed a post as being the opinion of the blog site rather than the poster.

    That is a rather stupid, but common, tactic used to smear this blog as a whole. It inevitably reduces to a flamewar, thereby avoiding looking at the content of the posts. The tactic gets picked up by other commentors for the same reasons.

    So I treat all comments addressing The Standard as being made personally to me (the same as you addressed me here). Since it wastes my time, I stomp on people doing it hard, noisily and continue doing it until it dies out. It really isn’t a matter that is up for discussion.]
27. r0b 27

    17 April 2008 at 2:34 pm

    I guess we were just too underwhelmed by the question Scribe.

    FACT#1 NZF wants it debated in the house

    FACT#2 single questions aren’t enough NZF wants a debate.

    Yawn.
28. Scribe 28

    17 April 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Yesterday, when New Zealand First offered them a chance to debate the issue in Parliament, they said ‘no’. Scared to debate substantively, rather than in sound-bites, it seems.

    Another interpretation is that National actually wanted to discuss something that they could effect change on — corrections, immigration, education and crime were topics they covered that afternoon — rather than trying to score cheap political points by reiterating the fact that the inquiry into the airport sale was a Clayton’s inquiry and the two ministers conducting the investigation were NEVER going to approve the deal.

    I would say engaging in a worthless debate on the airport would have been a more desperate attempt to get a few sound bites than allowing parliamentary business to proceed.
29. r0b 29

    17 April 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Another interpretation is that National actually wanted to discuss something … rather than trying to score cheap political points

    Ahh Scribe, you crack me up!

    Key just swallowed a big dead rat on asset sales, and the Nats are terrified of debating it in the house. End of story. Byeee.
30. Scribe 30

    17 April 2008 at 5:14 pm

    r0b,

    Key just swallowed a big dead rat on asset sales, and the Nats are terrified of debating it in the house. End of story.

    Sorry, I forgot you and Steve Pierson are omniscient. You’re right. The Nats were terrified.

    What would the Nats have gained from having that debate, r0b? If your answer is different from my answer — which is “nothing” — then please educate someone as ignorant as me.
31. simon coffey 31

    17 April 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Nice work Simon. Toeing that Standard line beautifully. ( Scribe )

    I’m toeing no one’s bloody line…

    I work three jobs, Part time (20 hours) for someone else, Co Director for a Concert touring company and as a house husband (when my lad isn’t with his care giver)

    I’m a supporter of a Labour led Gov’t because of;
    (1) The Paid parental leave (we have an 18 month old it was a great help)
    (2) Looking forward to the 20 hrs of child care in a wee bit
    (3) Our incomes (2 of us) are each just under the 60K so the the 39% tax rate doesn’t affect us.
    (4) we rent rather than own (we are putting large % of our income into super, kiwisaver and investment portfolio’s) so interest rates mean little to us.
    (5) Both believe in supporting the arts, classic and bohemian
    (6) An independant Foreign Policy
    (7) Don’t see what a Nat led govt will do for us (from the little they announced so far)
    (8) and I just don’t trust Johnboy and Billabong

    so up yours nat boy (scribe)
32. Scribe 32

    17 April 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Simon,

    Easy tiger. You’re welcome to support Labour, and who says I’m a nat boy?

    My point was that you — and Steve — were taking Winston’s own press release as gospel.

    If we’re playing the “job” card, as a working journalist my concern is that people aren’t sucked in by spin. The Standard (apologies in advance to Lyn for generalising) rightly calls media organisations out when they don’t dig for info, but in this case simply parroted what the NZ First press release said as though it were independent news coverage.

    That was my gripe, not who you vote for (and why) or your job situation.

    Have a nice evening, Simon (certainly not “up yours”).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS