There was this weird article in the Herald yesterday by some guy who owns a wedding venue in Gisborne.
Apparently Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford had been negotiating with the proprietor to hold their wedding at his venue.
I have some experience of the modern day concept that is known as a wedding. A family member had their wedding recently. It was at a beautiful location and a wonderful gorgeous event. But the proprietors of the venue were pretty weird. They ran the premises with military precision and were really upset when a car with an elderly relative parked in the wrong place. And on the next day when I was 15 minutes late for the clean up they were on the phone demanding to know where I was. It was recommended that a wedding planner was used as a shield between their uber control impulses and the emotional responses of people who just want to publicly acknowledge they love each other and want their family and friends to have a good time. The Gisborne venue’s proprietor’s behavior was very similar.
I had the impression that more than a few wedding venues are highly capitalised business models owned predominately by cashed up entrepreneurs who tweak their business model to make sure that their investment is maximised. Ah capitalism, seeking to garner a financial return from the most important personal ceremony most of us will go to.
So when I read the Herald attack article on Jacinda yesterday memories of my earlier experience flooded back. Imagine attacking the Prime Minister publicly because Covid delayed her wedding and she wanted to get a real chef to cater for the event. Especially when it appears that your own culinary abilities may not be optimal.
I have not seen the details of what was signed but the proprietor’s statement that “it was too expensive and we couldn’t agree on the finer details” makes me wonder if there was actually an enforceable contract. And the throwing of toys out of the cot when he found out that someone else was preparing the food was pretty weird. And not something that would engender good public relations or future business opportunities. Except maybe among Ardern book turners.
But here is where it gets really strange. It appears this story was a Cameron Slater smear. You would think the Herald would know better.
And to further the dirty politics links Jordan Williams and the Taxpayers Union are seeking details of Ardern’s assistant’s involvement. She has been a good friend to Ardern and has organised a number of events for Labour in her spare time in the past but this does not stop an attempted further smear.
The decision to publish the story on the front page speaks volumes about the Herald business model with a number of twitterers cancelling their subscriptions because this was one click bait story too much.
The problem is that the subscriptions fund the likes of Simon Wilson, Matt Nippert and David Fisher’s deeper dives into important issues. The clickbait generates its own income.
Simon sums it up as follows:
This is a tough issue and I personally maintain my subscription because I can see the importance of funded journalism that does not require the shock and awe of social media clicks to be published. Without the subscription my fear is that it would be wall to wall reckons from the likes of Mike Hosking, Heather Du Plessis-Allan and Bill Ralston.
But the Herald echoing a story shopped by a failed smear merchant makes it really difficult to take it seriously. Especially when the lightest of examination may have revealed that there was nothing of substance into the complaint.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress