Spinning the spin.

Written By: - Date published: 2:11 pm, January 20th, 2008 - 279 comments
Categories: Media, spin - Tags: , , ,

Ruth Laugeson has an article in the Sunday Star Times about the increased numbers of communications staff employed by ministries. Entitled “Spinning govt yarn costs $47m”, the article is in many ways a lovely piece of spin in its own right.

The basis of the article is that the number of spindoctors employed by the Government has greatly increased – we’re told it’s doubled from five years ago and is much much larger than it was in 1984. This is totally true. But one of the aspects of good spin is what you leave out.

There are a lot of reasons general communications staff might increase, most notably the fact that it takes a lot of people and effort to maintain an up-to-date website and having no website or an out of date one leaves you open to a lot of criticism (especially if you’re a ministry). But this story is about spindoctors and if we’re talking media then the truth of the matter is that over the last five years (and longer) I’ve watched the communications output from everyone increase. Nowadays every bloody thing gets its own media release. I just looked on scoop, for example, and it seems that Coca Cola has decided a new campaign to sell bottled water deserves its own media release. Note – we’re not talking about anything revolutionary about the product – this is an media campaign promoting an advertising campaign in turn promoting water. I mean really, why would they bother?

They bother because there’s a good chance someone will pick it up and they know nobody would ever pick it up in a million years unless they fax and email it to every newsroom in the country.

Y’see, nearly every newsroom in New Zealand has had the guts ripped out of it by its owners. Back in the day a newspaper reporter might spend a day doing one story and the newsroom would be full. Nowadays you can give one journo an internet connection and a phone and expect them to churn out ten stories a day (I’ve heard stories of ZB journos doing up to 20!) and that’s nine other journos you don’t have to employ. And that means profits. APN, who owns the Herald currently makes about 13% profit on capital annually – their target is 20% and they regularly post annual profits around the $100m mark from their NZ operations alone. Fairfax generally makes twice as much or more.

Of course the news suffers a lot when you cut frontline staff. Nothing can be investigated in depth and there’s very little time to gather balanced comment. If you’re a journo tasked with 10 stories a day and someone such as Coca Cola or a Ministry (or the National Party) offers to provide you with the “research” and quotes you need to make one, what do you do? The answer is you use what they give you and move onto the next story ‘cos fuck it, you’re on close to minimum wage once you count your unpaid overtime anyway.
That’s why the most telling line in the whole of Laugeson’s story comes from Jim Tully:

government and corporate public relations staff were growing as newsrooms were shrinking.

It wasn’t worth employing PR people in 1984 because you could tell a journo whatever you wanted and you’d know they’d have the time and resources to cover the story properly. In fact if you brought something up with them you’d be guaranteeing that your opponent’s opinion on the matter and the facts themselves would get a good airing.

Nowadays you can be fairly sure that if your media release is picked up, large chunks of it are likely to be run almost verbatim and if your opponent doesn’t get a release of their own out quick enough then it’s highly unlikely they’ll be heard. And your own issues or achievements won’t be heard about if you don’t speak up either. In today’s news climate nobody would hear about what the government (or anyone else) does without spindoctors and I find that depressing.

The real story behind the increase in spindoctors is the story of our newsrooms being run down and our news increasingly coming directly from the keyboards of vested interests because we’ve got a media that cares about profits and not about paying people to actually gather our news.

Considering we rely on information from the media in order to make important decisions about our lives and our country (such as who to vote for) that’s a very dangerous situation. But it’s not one we’re going to see examined in the SST anytime soon.

279 comments on “Spinning the spin. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. the sprout 1
    20 January 2008 at 2:26 pm

    that’s a pretty fair analysis of the political economy of the modern NZ newsroom IB. good article.

    as Al Morrison once said:

    “The cardinal sin, is to buy into spin. That’s the cardinal sin for journalism.. There’s nothing wrong with [spin]. What’s wrong is where a lazy or incompetent journalist, or one under tremendous pressure to produce, fails to check the spin. The responsibility of a journalist is to consider all sides of a major issue and to put one piece of spin against another.”

  2. IrishBill 2
    20 January 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Thanks Sprout, it’s an issue close to my heart. Good quote from Al though, I always respected his journalism and he was always very vocal about how important it is to maintain journalism’s standards. I fear too few of today’s journalists actually realise how important their jobs are. (And I doubt they get much confirmation of this fact when they open their payslips).

  3. the sprout 3
    20 January 2008 at 2:42 pm

    “few of today’s journalists actually realise how important their jobs are”

    agreed. those new recruits to journalism who do understand the democractic importance of a real 4th Estate tend to be put off by the msm, which prefers to hire the naive and manipulable.

    then there’s the msm’s spin about how “we don’t influence public opinion, we just give people the facts to make up their own minds”. a lot of the cheap new blood hired by msm actually seem to believe this.

  4. Santi 4
    20 January 2008 at 3:54 pm

    Do we need more and more spin doctors to tell us how great this socialist government is? You obviously have no respect for the intelligence of the NZ populace (and you maybe correct in that regard).

    Spin is spin regardless of being promoted by left or right-wing governments, altough the former are quite keen on propaganda. Remember Goebbels?

  5. Daveo 5
    20 January 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Remember Goebbels?

    Too far.

  6. Billy 6
    20 January 2008 at 4:06 pm

    “The real story behind the increase in spindoctors is the story of our newsrooms being run down…”

    Is it IrishBill?

    Or is the real story that the government has shut down its opponents via the EFA, politicised the public service (or at least put any critics of the government within the public service in fear that if they speak up Trevor will use Parliamentary privilege to tell the world they are shit at their jobs), and engaged an unprecendented army of spin doctors to use tax dollars to get re-elected?

    Nah. Must be that thing you said about evil multi-nationals.

  7. dad4justice 7
    20 January 2008 at 4:06 pm

    The thought of more spin doctors for pollies makes me dizzy and faint, as I thought they were already in one big spin .

  8. Daveo 8
    20 January 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Or is the real story that the government has shut down its opponents via the EFA

    Third parties can still run ads opposing the government (or the National, or the Greens or whoever they like), they just have a spending cap of $120,000 to make sure they don’t drown out other voices. Look through the last few elections and tell us exactly who this would affect.

    politicised the public service

    If you honestly believe the public service has been politicised you’ve been reading to many John Key newsletters.

    engaged an unprecendented army of spin doctors to use tax dollars to get re-elected?

    Government communications staff are not allowed to electioneer. This has been covered so many times in so many places Billy. Can’t you tell when you’re just being fed National party lines?

    Nah. Must be that thing you said about evil multi-nationals.

    You don’t have a clue how the political economy of the media actually works do you?

  9. Daveo 9
    20 January 2008 at 4:17 pm

    OBviously “If you honestly believe the public service has been politicised you’ve been reading to many John Key newsletters.” shouldn’t be italisied.

  10. Billy 10
    20 January 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Yeah, Daveo, that $120k will go a long way against that $47m of government department spinning.

  11. Phil 11
    20 January 2008 at 4:35 pm

    I’ve dealt with Ruth Laugeson on a couple of stories she’s written (providing her with data and contextual background) and she has always struck me as being efficient, intelligent, and thorough. I don’t know what her political affiliations (if any) are, but I really doubt that she would be attempting to ‘spin’ anything or anyone.

  12. IrishBill 12
    20 January 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Yes – Ruth is a good journo but reporters don’t write their own titles and they don’t get the final say on the shape of a story. My point is the real issue is the cutting of newsrooms and that is a story that will never be told in the msm.

    Billy – you sound like a fanatic.

  13. Dean 13
    20 January 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Speaking of spin and Tane’s recent declaration that the labour party weren’t involved in this blog, would anyone care to enlighten me as to why the standard is sitting on an IP address registered to the new zealand labour party?

  14. Tane 14
    20 January 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Um, because they’re not. Have a read of my comment on Kiwiblog:

    G’day PaulM, no our blog is not being paid for by Labour or the taxpayer, nor do any of us derive an income from it – quite the opposite.

    We set The Standard up as an independent left-wing blog in August last year. As you probably remember by about November our traffic had got so large our server was crashing every day, sometimes for hours at a time. We put out a call and at the end of last year someone from Labour emailed us and offered us some temporary server space until we worked something out.

    It’s not the ideal solution I admit, but as a temporary measure it sure beats having your site down for hours at a time during peak hours. We’ll probably have some new hosting sorted some time within the next month. Don’t fret though Paul, it hasn’t stopped us telling our readers to vote Green.

  15. andy 15
    20 January 2008 at 7:26 pm

    ‘standard is sitting on an IP address registered to the new zealand labour party?’

    Tane: thats lame, prove it or lose it, independant or not?

  16. Dean 16
    20 January 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Tane: So in other words, the Labour party is providing your server space.
    How much are they charging for this? If they’re not charging, what would said server space be costing them? Figured in average market rates are fine.

    You don’t think people will find this kind of information, you know, important when deciding on the relative level of bias of posts here? I mean, come on. You’re not stupid.

  17. andy 17
    20 January 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Tane your busy on kiwiblog defending yourself.

    independant or not?

  18. IrishBill 18
    20 January 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Dean, I doubt Tane knows what it’s costing (the server we had that was falling over was about US$10 a month I think). This has always been a temporary measure and I’ll stand by our independence. Only two posts ago I was encouraging people to vote green. Barely a Labour party line I’d think.

  19. BoomTownPrat 19
    20 January 2008 at 7:44 pm

    There seems to be a loud wooshing noise on this site…………oh thats right its any last semblance of credibility flying out the window!

  20. Dean 20
    20 January 2008 at 7:47 pm

    Sorry IrishBill, but until someone can answer:

    1. What it’s costing you and
    2. Who’s paying

    .. then really, all you are is hypocritical, and despite your protests of independance (no, telling people to vote Green is not independant in this light, we all know how MMP works and who Labour would like to form a coalition with) all you’re doing is insulting other people’s intelligence.

    Put up, or shut up, would seem to be the appropriate courses of action here.

  21. dad4justice 21
    20 January 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Talking about spin and all that doctor stuff – I just washed me sock’s and holy meatworker singlets and I just had a thought after reading a post on kiwiblog . It is my customary protocol for me to ask a straight too the throat vise type grip jugular question.

    Who pays for our privilege’s to post on the standard blog ?

  22. The Prophet 22
    20 January 2008 at 7:52 pm

    So, This is a Labour Party blog?

    Isn’t it illegal to have an anon commercial blog under the EFA?

    What a surprise.

    Hollow

    Hollow

    Hollow

  23. Insolent Prick 23
    20 January 2008 at 7:52 pm

    IrishBill:

    You advocating Labour Party voters vote Green is not an anti-Labour position. If I were a Labour Party activist, and the Greens were hovering at 4.5%, I’d be encouraging people to vote Green as well.

    This blog has been hosted and subsidised by the Labour Party for several months. It puts a lie to the Standard’s claim to be an independent, left-wing blog. Being paid for by the Labour Party also puts this blog at odds with the Electoral Finance Act.

    The Standard couldn’t have composed a more stunning own-goal if they had tried. I used to wonder whether Tony Milne’s shoddy arguments defending the Labour Party were a subtle dirty attempt by an evil Nat to make the Labour Party look stupid. I’m now beginning to wonder whether the Standard’s stupidity is actually part of a very smart right-wing plot.

  24. dad4justice 24
    20 January 2008 at 7:55 pm

    A standard hollow blog paid for by the struggling tax payer !!

    What is going on New Zealand ?

  25. andy 25
    20 January 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Tane/IrishBill:

    Farrar works for the Nats, No secret.

    independant or not? the clock is ticking and your credibility is diminishing with every second!

  26. dad4justice 26
    20 January 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Tick Tock the sod mouse ran up rogers clock .

  27. IrishBill 27
    20 January 2008 at 8:07 pm

    “This blog has been hosted and subsidised by the Labour Party for several months.”

    IP, that’s clearly untrue. We only got a new server at the start of this month. I’m not aware of the details of the server deal but I’d imagine if there’s a cost then the first bill won’t even have arrived.

    I’m pretty certain “vote green” is not a message that labour would want to put out. Especially as a direct instruction not to vote labour. I don’t know what planet you come from but when a major party is struggling in the polls the last thing it’s going to do is cut a little more off its own vote. Unfortunately politics and altruism don’t often go together.

  28. andy 28
    20 January 2008 at 8:08 pm

    are you calling HQ for spin advise?

  29. dad4justice 29
    20 January 2008 at 8:11 pm

    “Unfortunately politics and altruism don’t often go together.”

    Yes IrishBill – that’s why child abuse is rampant in New Zealand .

    Sorry I didn’t get who pays the Ferryman over here in Standard land ?

  30. The Prophet 30
    20 January 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Could you provide some links to the ‘Vote Green’ message you have been vigorously pushing please Bill.

  31. andy 31
    20 January 2008 at 8:14 pm

    again:

    Tane/IrishBill:

    Farrar works for the Nats, No secret.

    independant or not? the clock is ticking and your credibility is diminishing with every second!

    captcha: holdup kidder

  32. dad4justice 32
    20 January 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Haha vote green – yeah right this is a Labour site dude – get a grip .

  33. Dean 33
    20 January 2008 at 8:17 pm

    d4j: You’re really not adding anything to this, and I’ve seen better trolling from creatures without a centralised nervous system. You’re a great argument for an internet stupidfilter if ever there was one.

    IrishBill: Please just stop it with the whole Greens deal. We all know they’re Labours preferred coalition partner and are both reliant on each other to win the next election.

    Also, do you have the figures yet?

  34. IrishBill 34
    20 January 2008 at 8:17 pm

    Prophet, the post was Damned if you do. Here’s the text:

    “you can vote Labour for low wages and poor working conditions or you can vote National and see it all get even worse”

    “As the Alliance no longer exists I’d suggest voting Green is the best way to truly support Kiwi families”

    hardly a ringing endorsement of labour.

  35. Dean 35
    20 January 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Since the costs associated with this blog and who might be paying for them seem to be difficult to come by, perhaps you could inform us who at the Labour party authorised the use of their server space for the Standard?

    And no, Tane, the OIA doesn’t apply.

  36. Big Bruv 36
    20 January 2008 at 8:23 pm

    Oh dear!, it looks like you chaps have been exposed as very hollow men indeed.

    I feel it is time for an explanation.

  37. IrishBill 37
    20 January 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Dean, I don’t have the figures. Unlike Kiwiblog we’re a collective and I don’t deal with any of details of the tech stuff (frankly it makes my eyes glaze over). Neither does Tane. When we get the information we’ll put something up about it. I’d suggest you are free to think what you want but I’m not gonna disturb our tech guy on a long weekend because you demand satisfaction. If you think I would then you have lost perspective.

  38. dad4justice 38
    20 January 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Nice Dean , however being a troll is a hard fought privilege and a respect of the freedom of expression in kiwiland . I am better trolling for lefty flatfish, a easy to catch sub species bottom dweller red scavenger fish.

    Are the greens distancing themselves from Labour ?

  39. The Prophet 39
    20 January 2008 at 8:28 pm

    So Bill, You’re pointing out one post out of (300 ??), to show that you’re (collectively) really supporting The Greens and not Labour.

    Come on mate, thats not gonna wash.

    Better to not reply than insult people like that.

  40. andy 40
    20 January 2008 at 8:29 pm

    its very quiet here! fess up, you have had enough time to email each other for talking points.

  41. andy 41
    20 January 2008 at 8:35 pm

    IrishBill: “I’m not gonna disturb our tech guy on a long weekend because you demand satisfaction. If you think I would then you have lost perspective.”

    its not a long weekend up here! so your tech guy is in wellington? 9th floor…

  42. Dean 42
    20 January 2008 at 8:36 pm

    IrishBill: Fair enough, you dont have the figures or know who at the Labour party authorised this blog to be hosted on their servers.

    Let’s hope someone at the Standard can provide us with these answers in the next couple of days.

  43. IrishBill 43
    20 January 2008 at 8:36 pm

    No Prophet. I’m pointing out that in the brief time we’ve been on this server I’ve had a go at labour policy. I wasn’t saying we collectively endorse the Greens, just pointing out that the most recent example of our independence from the labour party. If you labour is all controling (as you frequently suggest it is) then why would they fund an attack on their policy?

    Also, we do not collectively endorse anyone. We each have our own political views but they are all of the left.

  44. IrishBill 44
    20 January 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Andy, it’s Queens Birthday weekend.

  45. dad4justice 45
    20 January 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Dean – why should the answer to our questions take two days ? Both kiwiblog and here, await the answers to our reasonable questions .Who pays for kiwiblogblog ??

    What is hard about it – does the Labour Party finance this blog ?

  46. Ruth 46
    20 January 2008 at 8:40 pm

    The blog could be hosted by King Kong for all I care. 90% of the general public don’t even know what ‘hosted’ means.

    I disagree with most of what is written here, and I dislike how it has become a John Key Hate Site for the most part. However the posts stand or fall on their own merit. Who hosts it is immaterial.

    This issue is very frightening for those of us who blog. Random people of dubious morality have no problem whatsover with outing bloggers whose opinions they don’t like, and that is just plain wrong, whether you are Labour, National, Centrist or whatever.

  47. andy 47
    20 January 2008 at 8:43 pm

    IrishBill said:

    “Andy, it’s Queens Birthday weekend.”

    so I go to work tomorrow to pay for your website while you have a day off, Magic…..

    I don’t care who pays the bills, just want to see the receipt if its me…

    captcha: company killed

  48. Dean 48
    20 January 2008 at 8:47 pm

    d4j: Because there’s every chance that IrishBill is telling the truth and that the information isn’t available right at this moment in time. Besides, I’m not sure that you sould know what a reasonable question even sounded like.

  49. Daveo 49
    20 January 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Andy- I think it’s been made clear here and on KB that the taxpayer ain’t footing any bills. We don’t even know if the standard is paying for the server space or if it’s being gifted by the Labour party.

    I’m sure the standard will put something up clarifying any major questions in the next wee while. In the meantime this all looks like a bit of rightie hysteria to me.

  50. andy 50
    20 January 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Tane can coment on Kiwiblogblog at 8.23 but is silent here

  51. Barnsley Bill 51
    20 January 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Bwahahahahahaha.
    The axis of stupid sprung.
    Bet mike Williams is chewing someones are as I type.
    You would think that sorting your hosting situation would have been sorted after Whale Oil sprung you clowns last time…

  52. outofbed 52
    20 January 2008 at 8:51 pm

    teacup meet storm

  53. IrishBill 53
    20 January 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Andy, thanks to the current government you’ll be getting a minimum of time and a half and a day in lieu for working tomorrow.

  54. dad4justice 54
    20 January 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Tane is silent a kiwiblog too .Dean is your real name Helen ?

  55. Santi 55
    20 January 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Tane, you’ve been exposed for what you really are: a mouthpiece of the Labour Party.

    Tell us how many pieces of silver of you do it for love of socialism?

    Labour is incredibly stupid to register that IP address as DPF has found out. You’ve been unmasked!

  56. Dean 56
    20 January 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Daveo: If you think it’s hysteria, or somehow exclusive to the right, then you couldn’t be more wrong.

    I must have missed the part about it being made clear the taxpayer wasnt paying for it. You could very well be correct, but can you pease point me to where this was proven?

  57. dad4justice 57
    20 January 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Is this the end of the standard’s credibility?

  58. the sprout 58
    20 January 2008 at 8:55 pm

    my how the fascists pile in when they think they smell blood. pack animals.
    the credibility of my daily newspaper doesn’t change if it’s delivered on a red bicycle or a blue bicycle – especially not if the bicycle is borrowed.
    your desperate attempts to grasp at this show just how very nervous the fascists are about exposing issues of patronage.
    time will tell indeed fascists.

  59. Daveo 59
    20 January 2008 at 8:57 pm

    Because according to the thread over at KB the standard is hosted in NZ while the Labour Party site is hosted in Japan. Also, the list of sites sharing the server currently hosting the standard looks like something that would be run by the party proper and not the parliamentary wing.

    Pretty conclusive I’d say.

  60. andy 60
    20 January 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Daveo: if you make tough calls you had better be squeaky clean, I would like to be proved wrong. As my ego can cope…

    The standard has made some tough calls on others, I respect that but this is a tough call on there credibility, its awful quiet here.

    are Tane and IrishBill shifting the hosting as we type, I hope so. This would go toward repairing said credibility. If they do and prove as a tax payer I am not paying for any of this I will withdraw and apologise ( for what???)

    They are open about revitalising “the standard” as a brand, cool. But have claimed to be independant of political parties. Now we are unsure.

    If what they say is true all power to them!

  61. milo 61
    20 January 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Don’t worry “the sprout”, I’ve worked it out. This blog is funded by the Exclusive Brethren!

    PS – It’s quite good writing people off as “fascists”. It means you don’t have to take the trouble to examine their arguments, but can sail serenely on in a cloud of self-satisfied somnolence.

  62. Whaleoil 62
    20 January 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Yeah I would agree. Pretty conclusive that Labour is running the Standard.

    Pretty conclusive that they have been caught lying like flatfish and in their pathetic attempts to get off the hook lied some more.

    Cash for blogging brought to you by Labour the hollowest of parties.

    Heh captcha licensed corporate

  63. the sprout 63
    20 January 2008 at 9:03 pm

    oh Daveo, you’ve gone and ruined their excited little circle jerk with facticity – you know how that deflates them

  64. outofbed 64
    20 January 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Hey they are all really excited aren’t they. I suppose we have to put up with all their lame arse comments for the next few days till they all fuck off back to the bog where they belong.

  65. Dean 65
    20 January 2008 at 9:04 pm

    the sprout: You can call me a facist all you like. Personally I think you’re stretching it, seeing as how you didn’t leap to DPFs defence when this very blog was attempting to draw a conclusion between his blog and the National party.

    The trouble with that was DPF already discloses his ties, political or financial. Maybe there’s more there? Maybe there isn’t. But according to you, even asking makes you a fascist.

    You’re struggling because now that the shoe is on the other foot, and there are unanswered questions surrounding the Standard, you’re finding it’s not very comfortable to wear. the emotive language you’re using is just making you sound shrill.

  66. Daveo 66
    20 January 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Whaleoil mate you’re making quite a bold claim there given all we’ve seen is that Labour only agreed to temporarily host the standard in the last few weeks, during which time they’ve attacked Labour for low wages and encouraged their readers to vote Green.

  67. Dean 67
    20 January 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Daveo: That still doesn’t answer a: who’s paying for it or b: who authorised it.

    You may have a point on a, but no, it’s not conclusive until actual facts are bought to bear rather than frenzied supposition. I’m far more interested in b.

  68. the sprout 68
    20 January 2008 at 9:08 pm

    pretty typical National attack line. compare two incomparable cases, like one where National is guilty and Labour is not – then cry foul when both aren’t treated the same way.
    got anything new?
    oh no that’s right, i forgot you’re conservatives. old good, new bad.

  69. Richard Hurst 69
    20 January 2008 at 9:09 pm

    I am disgusted Labour have been running this blog, dirty little creeps. I hope there will shortly be an auditing by the Electoral Comission.
    Labour spin doctors come out of hiding and face the full wrath of your own vile Electoral Finance Act!

  70. andy 70
    20 January 2008 at 9:12 pm

    I hope i am not a facist, I look shit in brown 🙂

  71. Dean 71
    20 January 2008 at 9:13 pm

    thesprout: oh, silly me. Only conservatives or National party voters, members or supporters would care about this.

    I’ll forget all about it then, seeing as how I’m none of the above.

    I’m not sure how long it’ll take you to understand though. If it makes it any easier for you to understand, you could just continue to label me as a fascist.

  72. Inventory2 72
    20 January 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Nothing to see here, move on…….

  73. Chemist Peter 73
    20 January 2008 at 9:24 pm

    You bunch of thieving socialist bastards. Using my tax money to spread your thilthy lies.

  74. Whaleoil 74
    20 January 2008 at 9:26 pm

    Daveo, on the contrary we haven’t seen ANY evidence of your contention at all.

    All we have seen is various, I stress various attempts at explaining, running from it costs nothing (and now we know why) to only $10 a month, not really believable to the latest excuse “its only temporary”.

    Those are hollow answers quite frankly from anonymous hollow bloggers.

    It is important now to know the exact details. As they are so often want to point out where there is smoke there is fire.

    There needs to be some transparency at The Standard, the very call that they make over articles published in the Herald.

    Who is calling the tune?, who is paying the piper?

  75. Draco TB 75
    20 January 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Spin is spin regardless of being promoted by left or right-wing governments, altough the former are quite keen on propaganda. Remember Goebbels?

    Oh dear, here we go again, the right trying to pin fascism on the left again. Sorry to inform you but the Nazis were very much hard right. That’s why a group of US capitalists tried to overthrow the then US government in a fascist coup in 1933. Why Mussolini said that “fascism should really be called corporatism because it is a merger of government and business”.

  76. lprent 76
    20 January 2008 at 9:31 pm

    I just posted this on kiwiblog – it is awating moderation (and will probably have to do the same here… I’m a bit annoyed with some of low technical intelligence displayed there…

    Lynn

    Contary to some of the idiotic statements in the comments on this blog, TheStandard.org.nz is a voluntary blog site, not run by the labour party.

    Because it is voluntary, it takes donations to help run the site. In this case a donated block of static IP’s pointing to a server cluster. In this case I think that the IP’s were donated to the NZLP, who donated them to help our blog. The volume of traffic was growing fast enough that we needed to move to a more distributed cluster than the origional test site.

    The NZLP doesn’t pay for thestandard, in exactly the same way that I trust (or at least hope) that the national party or act doesn’t pay for this blog.

    The comments in this blog are on the same crass standard as when Whaleoil previously attempted to do some kind of greenmail on my previous employer, because a cut-copy-paste left a DNS entry pointing at their DNS as a secondary server.

    I help run the tech end of TheStandard, and seldom actually get time to read it. That is left to a group of moderators. I don’t really know what they run as a policy, and they don’t know what my team does to keep the site running.

    If you want to ask about the technical areas of the site – ask me and tell me why you think you need to know it. Probably I’d have to question your ability to understand the explanation after looking at some of the stupidity displayed here about technical issues.

    Cheers
    Lynn Prentice

  77. Whaleoil 77
    20 January 2008 at 9:34 pm

    So Lyn you have confirmed then that Labour is “helping” paying for the site.

    Thank you. Finally someone with some honesty.

  78. Robinsod 78
    20 January 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Hey Whale. Your FSC paid for $18k of billboards when you only had $7k. I’d imagine $11K would pay for quite a lot of server space.

    The odd thing is you told me you’d explain it with an updated donor list “in a few days” back in December – yet still no update. What give Whale? Does it take you this long to cook the books?

  79. Whaleoil 79
    20 January 2008 at 9:41 pm

    His disclaimer really raises more questions, who donated the IP block that enable Labour to donate the IP block the Standard?

    Who is behind the Standard if not the Labour party?

    There seems to be some sort of coverup going on here proving that some significant sums are involved.

    I’m not sure how much an IP block costs but it isn’t nothing. That is quite some donation to the Standard.

    it also proves the lie of Tane’s that the situation was temporary.

    Seems the lies and obfuscations are set to continue.

  80. milo 80
    20 January 2008 at 9:44 pm

    It’s a donation in kind, as defined by the Electoral Finance Act. Remember? That legislation you were all so keen on ? Or do the rules only apply to people you disagree with?

  81. BoomTownPrat 81
    20 January 2008 at 9:44 pm

    Lyn re the Standard

    “it takes donations to help run the site.”

    Are these undisclosed anonymous donations?

  82. The Prophet 82
    20 January 2008 at 9:51 pm

    Interesting that nobody seems to know very much, isn’t it?

    Everyone connected with this site seems a little hollow to me.

    Anyway, none of it matters as this site is now as dead as the Dodo. All credibility is gone and I will give it 2 mths tops before it disappears into the ether.

    Even if you guys try to continue you will forever be connected with The NZ Labour Party.

    So, far from counteracting DPF, you have just handed yourselves to him on a platter, with a apple in your mouth even. To try and start again as a new entity now (election 10 mths >)will not work. You have centimated(decimated x 10?) Jordons site, and just left lightweights like KBB and Sleeps blog to fight the good fight.

    All in all, an own goal of epic proportions sure to go down in NZ internet history.

    Bit of a shame really as, apart from Robinsod, I thought you guys were doing quite a good job even though I could not agree with some of you positions.

  83. outofbed 83
    20 January 2008 at 9:53 pm

    lprent “TheStandard.org.nz is a voluntary blog site, not run by the labour party.”
    Dum “Thank you. Finally someone with some honesty.”

    Dum Who is behind the Standard if not the Labour party?

    Give it a rest he answered all the questions the nutjobs raised

  84. Dean 84
    20 January 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Lynn: Thanks for the explanation.

    Is it just a block of IPs that has been donated by the Labour party? Where is the actual content being hosted?

  85. milo 85
    20 January 2008 at 9:56 pm

    C’mon, I’ve told you already. This site is funded by the Exclusive Brethren!

  86. lprent 86
    20 January 2008 at 9:56 pm

    I know who they are. Do you need to?

    It is like asking for the donations to any blog site, any voluntary organization, any charity, etc.

    Try asking the red cross or greenpeace who donates to them

    Cheers
    Lynn

  87. The Prophet 87
    20 January 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Hi Mike

  88. lprent 88
    20 January 2008 at 9:59 pm

    Whaledreck.

    I said that a donated block of IP’s was passed to us. The labour party didn’t pay for them and probably wouldn’t know how to use them anyway. I didn’t pay for them.

    So how do you get to the LP is paying for the site? Seems up to your usual standard of intelligence. Pity it was never developed.

    It is a voluntary site using whatever resources we can scrounge – exactly the same as that tip you run.

    Lynn

  89. outofbed 89
    20 January 2008 at 9:59 pm

    The prophet That was the biggest load of crap I have ever read
    Get a grip man

  90. The Prophet 90
    20 January 2008 at 10:00 pm

    [deleted] anyones wife this weekend?

  91. lprent 91
    20 January 2008 at 10:01 pm

    BTW: the wholesale price of a block of IP’s is pretty low. At least it is if you aren’t some of the ISP’s who seem to charge a year in a month.

  92. The Prophet 92
    20 January 2008 at 10:02 pm

    We will see Outofbed

  93. milo 93
    20 January 2008 at 10:02 pm

    So Lynn, is it operating exactly like an anonymous trust then? Receiving laundered donations with deniability for the original source?

  94. Whaleoil 94
    20 January 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Your explanations are hollow Lynn,

    They fly directly in the face of Tane’s.

    Either you or him or both of you are being disingenuous.

    Just so you can catch up with tane’s talking points he has said previously.
    1. The site costs nothing to run (now we know why)
    2. It only costs $10 a month
    3. It is temporarily hosted with labour’s servers

    Now you tell us that it;
    a) Isn’t hosted with labour
    b)isn’t paid for by them
    c)But they donated a block of Static IP’s

    Forgive me but I can’t really believe either of you the explanations are so different as to beggar belief.

    Hollow expplnations from hollow men

  95. Dean 95
    20 January 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Lynn, in the interests of transparency, can you categorically confirm that the content/webserver/webspace and traffic are not being paid for, donated or otherwise provided by the Labour party?

  96. Richard Hurst 96
    20 January 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Labour shouldn’t donate anything to a non-commerical blog which claims to be independant (neither should any political party) and such a blog shoudld’t accept them. Since however it has been acknowledged that this is what has happened, why wasn’t this donation from Labour declared???
    This lack of declaration combined with the generally Left wing bias of most posts on the Standard..well, just connect the dots and the picture is clear.

  97. Robinsod 97
    20 January 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Hey Whale – still waiting on an answer from you – I even wrote a post on newsblog about it fat man. Oh and while yer at it how about a few answers for blogblog. I’d say you should probably get your (shit)house in order before you go slinging mud around. Just in case I used too many words for you last time I’ll lay it out simple:

    Cost of billboards: $18k

    FSC funds: $7k (approx)

    Shortfall: $11k

    So once more whale. Who paid the difference?

  98. milo 98
    20 January 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Doesn’t John Key have the right to know who is behind the attacks being made on him from this site?

    Or Tim Shadbolt for that matter. Imagine being attacked for having secret funders, from somebody who has … secret funders!

  99. Whaleoil 99
    20 January 2008 at 10:12 pm

    The going rate seems to be about $20 per month per Static Ip address. This is a block of 15 so that is $300 per month just for the IP addresses. or $3600 per annum. (Woosh, Telecom, TelstraClear, Orcon)

    That doesn’t include the server costs yet. Nice handy gift from the Labour party of $300 bucks per month. Nice if you can get it.

    Now tell me again labour isn’t paying for the site.

  100. lprent 100
    20 January 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Whaledreck,

    a. It doesn’t take much to run. Thats because it is run using donated services from friends in the IT industry. It is running on old hardware, where the OS, configuration, DNS etc is maintained by us. We donate our rather technical expertise for free – that is where most of the cost of any site goes directly or indirectly. Websites simply don’t chew enough bandwidth to really notice

    b. Tane and the other posters and moderators do not know how the system runs, because like you, thay are not technical.

    c. It isn’t on any labour server. It is on donated equipment that hosts a number of left-leaning sites and development systems. I know you’re rather technically illiterate – but a server may run any number of sites – all on the same IP numbers. It uses the URI to distinguish which code to run.

    d. The server cluster it is on at present runs less sites than my home test server. If you looked at them you would probably detect a left-wing, right-wing, vegan, computer geek, with a farming background who eats meat. I realise this doesn’t really help your conspiracy theories – but thats simply tough.

    Cheers
    Lynn

  101. Santi 101
    20 January 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Michael Porton, be careful. Your own “bro” Tane has distanced himself from your puerile statements in Barnsley Bill’s blog, so your days in this Labour-sponsored blog could be numbered.

    How does it feel to be exposed as paid employees of the socialist mob?

  102. BoomTownPrat 102
    20 January 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Oh I see now lprent.

    Anonymous donations are OK for left wing propaganda. But nothing else.

    Honestly, tell me, can you not see your abject hypocrisy? If not your hollowness resonates like a well struck tuning fork

  103. Dean 103
    20 January 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Lynn, thanks again for your answers.

    Just one last one – who’s paying for the bandwidth?

  104. the sprout 104
    20 January 2008 at 10:22 pm

    SlaterWhale, so when your Daddy buys you your toys and pays your bills, is that a donation, pity, or a bribe to keep you out of his life?

  105. milo 105
    20 January 2008 at 10:26 pm

    the sprout: The Electoral Finance Act is very clear about donations in kind. I didn’t like the Bill. I marched against it. Sorry if you missed your opportunity to do the same.

    Gee, wouldn’t it all be easier if it hadn’t been so *rushed*. Or if the regulated period wasn’t so *long*.

  106. Whaleoil 106
    20 January 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Sorry Lynn, that just raises more questions than it answers.

    1.Who are the friends in IT Industry and what sort of policy positions do they ask for in return for the uncounted services they “donate”

    2.Actually I am more technical than you would imagine, I just don’t spend any time on the tools any more, and irrellevant…they shouldn’t have started spinning b.s. then. Right now it looks like you are all a bunch of hollow liars.

    3.More anonymous donations. Refer Question one.

    4.Still doesn’t answer re the value of the Lbour party donation and what they expect for it.

    I mean fella’s if donations to SIT are for some sort of policy concession and donations from the EB’s are cash for policy then what are these anonymous donations for….cash for blogging….cash for talking points.

    Hollow answers from hollow tech’s at least get your talking points straight.

  107. Santi 107
    20 January 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Lynn, please tell me who is paying for the bandwidth and 2day.com services?

    No way to duck that straightforward question.

  108. milo 108
    20 January 2008 at 10:37 pm

    “John Key attack site funded by secret donors; Labour party implicated.”

    ‘Hey that’s not fair – the rules don’t apply to us here at The Standard: Don’t you understand, we’re the good guys.’

  109. Robinsod 109
    20 January 2008 at 10:38 pm

    Hey Whale – once more slowly.

    You. Said. You. Would. Explain. Where. The. Money. For. The. Bill boards. Had. Come. From. In. December. You’ve. Still. Not. Answered.

    So how about you do it now?

    You’re repeated attempts to skirt this issue are making you sound a little hollow, mate.

    Oh and while you’re at it how about you get those court papers served fatty, Oh no, that right – you can’t ‘cos you ain’t got nothing but bullshit and lies.

  110. Whaleoil 110
    20 January 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Bullshit and lies from Robinsod, that is quite correct.

    To be expected. Christ jesus the Standard folk can’t even defend themselves any more they have to rely on the likes of you.

  111. The Prophet 111
    20 January 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Poor little Mike, still trying to put out the fire by pissing in the corner, not realising the whole block’s ablaze behind him.

    Go to bed Mike, gonna be a BIG day tomorrow.

  112. Robinsod 112
    20 January 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Let me refresh your memory Whale:

    On the 20th of December I said to you : “how about telling us where the other $11k came from” http://www.killthebill.org.nz/?q=node/502#comment-174

    and you answered: “I suggest you check back in a few days for the updated Donor List.”

    http://www.killthebill.org.nz/?q=node/502#comment-175

    The only thing is Whale – I looked at the donor list the other day and it still doesn’t account for the missing $11k. If you’re going to throw accusations around about transparancy then you should probably have some yourself.

    So.

    Once more.

    Who paid for the bill boards whale?

  113. Chemist Peter 113
    20 January 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Robinsod – at least Whales money was not from the taxpayer unlike this shoddy site.

  114. Robinsod 114
    20 January 2008 at 10:59 pm

    Hey Prophet – I see you are your usual insolent self. What’s the matter? You seem to want to know all about the standard’s affairs – what about the FSC’s? I mean they took donations from people and yet so far their books seem a little… awry. I’ve given Whale dozens of chances to show otherwise and yet he doesn’t. Surely it’s not that hard?

    Or is it you feel the need to stick up for poor little whale? If that’s the case take this advice – he’s like a stone around your neck. Just ask davey.

    Speaking of which Whale, Davey never gave your wee mate Eddy any props. Y’d think the least he could do is look after a mate – oh hold on he started referring to you a “right wing blogger” didn’t he? Shit bro even DPF’s getting sick of your antics.

    So tell me where’d the extra $11k com from? (at your inflated rates that’s b> of hosting.

  115. James Kearney 115
    20 January 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Peter/D4J: It’s been established clearly that no taxpayer money is involved here. The server space was donated to the NZLP by people in the IT industry, who in turn donated it to the standard for temporary use when their servers kept going down. I’m glad they did as it was annoying seeing the site going down for hours at a time.

  116. milo 116
    20 January 2008 at 11:04 pm

    So it’s just secret Labour party donations to support a John Key attack site, then? Remember, donations in kind are specifically caught by the Electoral Finance Act.

  117. dave 117
    20 January 2008 at 11:06 pm

    who paid for the band width

  118. Kimble 118
    20 January 2008 at 11:08 pm

    Epic FAIL

  119. Robinsod 119
    20 January 2008 at 11:08 pm

    CP – there y’ go telling lies again. I’d like to see your proof (I’ve got proof that there an $11k discrepancy between the cost of the boards and the FSC’s donor’s list). Hell take a look:

    Farrar says boards cost $18k:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1509495

    FSC donation list (adds up to about $7k):

    http://www.killthebill.org.nz/?q=node/254/print

    See CP? That’s called evidence. If you make an accusation and don’t have any you’re probably a liar.

  120. BoomTownPrat 120
    20 January 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Robinsod, when the play of the book comes out re the sordid little back room deals this political collective has done to contravene the laws of the land, who should play you?

  121. Robinsod 121
    20 January 2008 at 11:31 pm

    BTP – Note my earlier comment on evidence. I see Whale has decided not to answer my perfectly simple question however, in fact he seems to have vanished. Hmmm… Whale, hello, whale?

    Oh and BTP – I’ve not part of teh Standard, it’s just since I got a lifetime ban from KB (for slander: apparently I asked too many questions about the FSC funding…) this is the only high volume political blog I can comment on.

    Aside from your baseless slurs however I’ve always thought I should be played by Helen Hunt.

    Oh and tell me BTP – seeing as you’re such a clever bugger, where do you think the FSC’s extra eleven thousand dollars came from?

  122. Barnsley Bill 122
    20 January 2008 at 11:31 pm

    James kearney said… with my comments in blocks..
    Peter/D4J: It’s been established clearly (NO IT HAS NOT) that no taxpayer money is involved here. The server space was donated to the NZLP by people in the IT industry (DONATION? HAS IT BEEN DECLARED), who in turn donated it to the standard for temporary use (TEMPORARY NOW YOU HAVE BEN CAUGHT)when their servers kept going down. I’m glad they did as it was annoying seeing the site going down for hours at a time.

    lIES UPON LIES UPON LIES.

    Robinsod, valiant effort at defending the indefensible mate. Keep trying to distract everybody like a not very good magician who has resorted to pulling hairs out of his arse.

  123. Robinsod 123
    20 January 2008 at 11:37 pm

    Yo Bill – I’m not defending anything. You know Whale don’t you? (I did suspect you are actually Eddy but I’m not s’posed to play that game any more) – perhaps you know where the $11k came from.

    Oh and mate I love the site you set up for me – nobody’s ever set up a site for me before I’m really touched by your gesture.

  124. Robinsod 124
    20 January 2008 at 11:38 pm

    Oh and Bill, I’m no expert ut I think donations get declared in some kind of annual return so I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

  125. James Kearney 125
    20 January 2008 at 11:40 pm

    What’s really classic is that for all Whale’s accusations of ‘anonymous donors’ he accepts them himself through paypal. Add that to his refusal to open the books on the FSC and I’m starting to notice a double standard here.

  126. milo 126
    20 January 2008 at 11:45 pm

    The fundamental message is that the Electoral Finance Act sucks. You are now finding this out. Some of us already knew.

  127. Robinsod 127
    20 January 2008 at 11:48 pm

    Milo – the EFA won’t even touch on this. Farrar’s just winding you up. Oh and I saw your headlines on KB – don’t give up your day job mate 😉

  128. Robinsod 128
    20 January 2008 at 11:51 pm

    Whale? Hello? Whale?

  129. illuminatedtiger 129
    20 January 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Is anybody in there?

  130. lprent 130
    20 January 2008 at 11:56 pm

    The bandwidth is a donation.

    Most of this discussion is a moot. It doesn’t apply under the EFA because as our little blurb at the top of the site says:

    “The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0”

    Note that is not the NZLP – it is the labour movement. Of course some of the rednecks don’t bother to engage their brains enough to distinguish the difference.

    I’d point out that the labour MOVEMENT has spawned a number of parties or p[arts of parties over the years. Apart from the labour party, this includes the new labour part of the alliance, progressives that came out of the alliance, most of the remaining united part of united future, parts of the liberals that made up part of the national party, a large chunk of the act party, the mana party which was part of the alliance and now is in the moari party (?) and probably a swag more that I can’t remember right now.

    The critical word is “movement” – thats why (IMHO) the policy here is not about one party (and never has been). Not that I have anything much to do with posting or moderating policy. They have been doing a pretty good job overall in my opinion.

    It comes from a left-leaning labour movement perspective. It includes people like me who are ‘right-wingers’ in almost all respects, but have difficulty with the lack of perspective and the small visions of the small ‘c’ conservatives.

  131. BoomTownPrat 131
    21 January 2008 at 12:05 am

    Robinsod

    the FSC have and will be more than transparent re funding as DPF has made clear.

    A little bit more honest than the deceptive little nest of hollow hypocrites here at the ?standard??????????

    Don’t you think a name change is in order?

  132. outofbed 132
    21 January 2008 at 12:10 am

    Boomtownprat I think in your case a brain change is in order

    Fuckme what has the lprent got to say, jees

  133. Robinsod 133
    21 January 2008 at 12:12 am

    BTP – saying your transparent doesn’t make it so. Look at the numbers:

    Farrar says boards cost $18k:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1509495

    FSC donation list (adds up to about $7k):

    http://www.killthebill.org.nz/?q=node/254/print

    There is $11k of spend that has come from somewhere. I’m assuming it’s come from donations but the FCS has not updated their donor list. It wouldn’t be a biggie but Whale said he’d do it a month ago. He hasn’t and now David is using the same “just wait a few days” line that whale did a month ago.

    Are you not even a little curious about where that money came from and why neither whale or DPF have given an answer?

  134. BoomTownPrat 134
    21 January 2008 at 12:20 am

    David farrar said this evening

    “FSC will be updating the donors list in next few days, in line with the voluntary full disclosure policy. Parties and other groups only have to file annual disclosure statements, but we are exceeding our legal requirements”

    How about the owners of this campaign blog do the same ?

  135. illuminatedtiger 135
    21 January 2008 at 12:22 am

    This isn’t a campaign blog. When will people realise this?

  136. Insolent Prick 136
    21 January 2008 at 12:23 am

    This is just gold:

    lprent
    Jan 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    I know who they are. Do you need to?

    It is like asking for the donations to any blog site, any voluntary organization, any charity, etc.

    Try asking the red cross or greenpeace who donates to them

    Cheers
    Lynn

    Except the Standard isn’t the Red Cross or Greenpeace. Both of those organisations are registered charities, required to be incorporated societies, and must publish their annual accounts. Their officers are publicly listed. They have strict rules that they must comply with, or else they lose their charitable tax status and incorporated society status.

    Instead, the Standard is subsidised by the Labour Party, and has championed the Electoral Finance Act, which by the Standard’s own claims, enhances accountability with respect to fundraising and expenditure by political parties and third parties. The Standard is authored, according to one left-wing activist, by employees of the Communications Unit of the EPMU. Tane has not denied this, despite several invitations to do so. Effectively, the Standard’s also being subsidised by the EPMU, which is not registered as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act.

    I don’t personally mind that the Standard’s authors are anonymous. Unfortunately, the Electoral Finance Act does seem to care that they’re anonymous. It makes all of their hollow defense of the EFA pointless if they are flouting the very law they championed.

  137. dave 137
    21 January 2008 at 12:25 am

    ThE Labour Movement in the days of the original standard was the Labour Party and the FOL.

    So, IPrent, care to name the other political parties in “the movement” at the time the Standard was around????.

    It’s Labour through and through and you know it. I suspect the word “movement” was there to put bloggers off the scent that this was run out of the Labour Party and the EPMU – or as you say, part of the “movement”.

    Oh BTW you can tell Tane that he can start writing the blogs again.

  138. Robinsod 138
    21 January 2008 at 12:25 am

    FSC will be updating the donors list in next few days

    Whale said the same thing a month ago.

    The only reason Farrar said it this time is he was called out on it. I’m assuming you’ve made a donation? How does it feel to know your money’s getting spent on those billboards?

  139. BoomTownPrat 139
    21 January 2008 at 12:31 am

    Rob says

    “How does it feel to know your money’s getting spent on those billboards?”

    It feels fine. How does it feel for you that our money is being spent funding this Labour Party anti Key hate site?

  140. illuminatedtiger 140
    21 January 2008 at 12:34 am

    I too am wondering where this 11k came from.

  141. Robinsod 141
    21 January 2008 at 12:34 am

    I suggest you check the donor list when/if it comes out and make sure your donation hasn’t been padded.

  142. illuminatedtiger 142
    21 January 2008 at 12:36 am

    I object to people calling this a John Key hate site. This site asks questions sure, but that does not constitute hate.

  143. outofbed 143
    21 January 2008 at 12:39 am

    Lots of knickers seem to be in a twist

    Which suggests that whatever the Standard is doing its doing it well.
    The Nut jobs on the right are obviously threatened by this blog

    The fact the the RWNJ from the bog post here in droves is a testament to its success

  144. Robinsod 144
    21 January 2008 at 12:40 am

    No tiger – what you’ve got to realise is that to rightwingers “hate speech” is where you point out their repugnant behaviour. For example when Whale Oil aka CAMERON SLATER photoshopped a fifteen year old boy’s face onto gay porn he wasn’t employing hate, but when he was told how repugnant it was he was the victim of hate. Poor, poor whale.

  145. Concerned from Tawa 145
    21 January 2008 at 12:52 am

    Why is the “about” page at The Standard blank?

  146. Insolent Prick 146
    21 January 2008 at 12:54 am

    Oh, really, outofbed?

    Let’s recap. Tane and others claim that the Standard is an independent, left-wing blog, with no specific connection to the Labour Party. The story’s been changing by the hour, but the present version is that the Labour Party donated the IP block to host the Standard. The Labour Party therefore subsidises the Standard’s hosting to the tune of about $300.00 per month.

    Next we have an allegation from left-wing academic Bryce Edwards that some of the Standard’s authors work in the communications unit at the EPMU. Tane responds that the Standard’s authors are not paid to blog by the EPMU, but doesn’t actually refute the allegation that EPMU employees are among the Standard’s authors.

    Given the Standard inciting the Hollow Men at every opportunity, it is curious that a blog subsidised by the Labour Party, composed of employees of the Labour Party’s largest affiliate union, insists on protecting the anonymity of its authors, and which so willingly championed the Electoral Finance Bill, that the Standard, and the Labour Party, should now be falling so foul of the Electoral Finance Act.

    For all the hysterical shrieking by the Standard every time DPF is not identified as a National Party member, it is simply astonishing that the Standard should have gone to such lengths to lie about its Labour Party connections.

    [Tane: Prick I’ve cleared that up over here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/the_standard_hosted_by_the_labour_party.html#comment-396809
    No trade union has endorsed, paid for or even been consulted on the standard.]

  147. illuminatedtiger 147
    21 January 2008 at 12:55 am

    It’s always been that way.

  148. Concerned from Tawa 148
    21 January 2008 at 12:57 am

    Bit like the Exclusive Brethren eh illuninated

  149. illuminatedtiger 149
    21 January 2008 at 1:01 am

    No. An About page is turned on by default. Some people write on them others don’t.

  150. BoomTownPrat 150
    21 January 2008 at 1:04 am

    Great send off IP.

    Time we all stopped making comments on this so called blog. It is clearly Tane(ted) and now serves no objective purpose.

  151. lprent 151
    21 January 2008 at 1:05 am

    IP – well probably not a good example listing charities. As you say, they’re registered so they can take advantage of tax status.

    We may get to that. But I’m afraid that at present merely talking to an accountant is probably going to cost more than we spent on it so far. Their charge out rates make mine look like small change. I think cost less than my charitable donations to Barnardo’s last year.

    What you have to understand is that this site was literally started as “why don’t we try setting up a left-leaning blog site” floating around as e-mails. The right-wing blogs out there were more than a little crass. I was told that they had high amounts of vitriol and very little content (and thats certainly what I’ve observed now that I’ve looked a few).

    It is a pretty classic internet shareware/voluntary escalation. We made a site, on a test server made out of bits and pieces on a DSL with a static IP that was used for other purposes. We used open source software as it is free and robust. People put their hand up to do various things and it keeps escalating. Hell I don’t know who most of the people working on it are – I just focus on the bits I keep running.

    I can understand the right’s paranoia about it. Thats why I wanted to set the site up. The level of vitriol and lack of content needed somewhere to be answered. A focus on the deficiencies of the right seemed like a better idea to me

  152. Concerned from Tawa 152
    21 January 2008 at 1:06 am

    Might help deflect the Labour stooges criticism if someone wrote something in it. Or perhaps put a Hello Kitty picture on it. Looks a bit EB leaving it blank

  153. illuminatedtiger 153
    21 January 2008 at 1:12 am

    If this site was anything like the EB it wouldn’t exist.

  154. Peak Oil Conspiracy 154
    21 January 2008 at 1:22 am

    Lynn Prentice:

    “The right-wing blogs out there were more than a little crass. I was told that they had high amounts of vitriol and very little content (and thats certainly what I’ve observed now that I’ve looked a few).”

    With respect, Lynn, I’m afraid neither left nor right can particularly claim the moral highground in the blogosphere. To take one example from last year: Sam Dixon was outed as a Wikipedia vandal. And as a more general observation: some of the comments on Kiwiblog, from supposedly left-wing folk, have at times bordered on the defamatory.

    2008 is an election year, so I suppose it’s a bit much to expect restrained moderation. I’d like to think I’m one of the more moderate part-timers; but then that’s my subjective opinion. Whatever, your comments simply couldn’t go unanswered.

  155. dad4justice 155
    21 January 2008 at 6:54 am

    So after reading all the above comments and codswopple over this issue at kiwiblog I have come to the conclusion that tax payer money has been spent on establishing and providing income for various bloggers so they can spread the liarbour word . It is rather amusing to watch Tane say over at Barnsley Bills that robinsod is on his last legs on this site . Talk about a bitch witch fight !

    I think National will have to get ready to win every seat come election time, as clearly Helen Klark’s gummint is going beyond the standard level corruption and she has stepped things up a notch, into the evil world of criminality .Liarbour are on the road to nowhere and there total political obliteration is inevitable .

  156. Santi 156
    21 January 2008 at 7:03 am

    “I can understand the right’s paranoia about it.”

    Lynn, don’t call it paranoia. Cal it absolute lack of honesty on Tane’s (and others) part. Why didn’t the group that setup the Standard disclose its links with the Labour Party from the outset? Very suspect, to say the least.

    The weak, almost moronic, excuses given by Tane don’t wash out and deserve to be called nothing but lies.

    As far as “Einstein” is concerned, the “facts” presented by Michael Porton, aka robinsond, about the FSC follow the pattern of inanities he’s known for.

  157. dad4justice 157
    21 January 2008 at 7:09 am

    Lynn,
    Just imagine the up roar if National did this ?
    Your argument is futile and your defense is nonsense . Russell Brown is very quite on this issue . Does Liarbour fund his blog as well ?

  158. AncientGeek 158
    21 January 2008 at 7:18 am

    Getting back to the origional topic

    “It wasn’t worth employing PR people in 1984…..”

    It sure wasn’t. What you did was employ lobbyists – a quite different profession. Their job was to wander around talking quietly to people trying to make sure that they didn’t lower your tariff barrier.

    It’d been done ever since some of the reasons for having tariff barriers had disappeared – probably in the 60’s. This came from the economic theories that said you should use tariff barriers and other incentives to provide shelter for forming industries. It is a theory used at least since Colbert in the reign of Louis X1V. The real problem is that once you give an economic advantage like that – how do you get rid of it – too many people depended on it for a livelihood. Didn’t happen in NZ – we just got more and more lobbying and lobbists.

    By 1984 a number of the local major companies and industry groups had more people doing lobbying than actually doing work. I was amazed at the company I was working in at the time had more people in their lobbyist office in Wellington than they had at their head office in Auckland.

    Anyway it was one of the biggest waste of effort that I ever saw. Didn’t make anything more productive – just increased the costs to any consumers.

    The inevitable happened after 1984. The tariff barriers started their long journey to what is now close to oblivion. The companies with products who were unable to compete against goods manufactured enormous distances away (after having protection for decades) died. Their workforces with a *lot* of unnecessary pain and over an even longer period, got adsorbed by new industries. etc etc…

    It was almost exactly what happened in France 300 years ago – who says that history never repeats

  159. dad4justice 159
    21 January 2008 at 7:31 am

    Anyone from the Public Address care to comment ??
    You are on the big pay roll Mr Brown as a guest in the inner circle . Do us a favour matey, get ready to find a new job on community service you gravy train leach !!

    This is an extremely serious issue !!

  160. the sprout 160
    21 January 2008 at 7:40 am

    ahhh. some times it’s good to have an opposition like d4j.

  161. AncientGeek 161
    21 January 2008 at 7:44 am

    “In today’s news climate nobody would hear about what the government (or anyone else) does without spindoctors and I find that depressing.”

    Probably explains why I find listening, watching or even reading the local news these days as being incredibly boring. Some of the commentators in the local paper are quite good. Even when I think they’re wrong – they usually worth reading. But the normal news stories are basically just trash.

    Given up on the TV news entirely unless someone clips a link to something interesting. Radio – it is pretty much Morning Report – which doesn’t more those 10 second headlines. And the daily herald urggghhhh…

    Actually you get better news from the blogs. The sound bite fetish wasn’t this bad in the 80’s or early 90’s.

    It is depressing…

  162. the sprout 162
    21 January 2008 at 7:53 am

    it’s the pretense of balance and comprehensiveness that gets up my arse. my writing is neither, but then i don’t pretend that it is, and i’m writing for an audience which understands that.

    unfortunately the trusting nature of many NZers has been simultaneously eroded and ruthlessly exploited by our msm – and for what? to plump the dividends of shareholders who may never have even heard of NZ. at least in the days of local family ownership of msm the proprietors shared an interest in the socio-political consequences of their campaigning.

  163. Barnsley Bill 163
    21 January 2008 at 8:06 am

    Sprout, at the end of your comment you seem to look back wistfully at this;
    “at least in the days of local family ownership of msm the proprietors shared an interest in the socio-political consequences of their campaigning.”

    But yet the local family who owned the Herald were taking a kicking from you lot last week because they re putting their own money into campaigning against the EFA.
    Having a Bob each way?Or has somebody updated the talking points?

  164. the sprout 164
    21 January 2008 at 8:33 am

    no BB, it’s called different topics.

  165. Psycho Milt 165
    21 January 2008 at 9:00 am

    Tane responds that the Standard’s authors are not paid to blog by the EPMU, but doesn’t actually refute the allegation that EPMU employees are among the Standard’s authors.

    Presumably he was simply too polite to give the correct answer, which is “Fuck off, cunt.” I refer you to this post by Zen Tiger, Prick. I agree with the sentiments expressed in it – for obvious reasons, I think people who prefer to blog anonymously should have their anonymity respected. Tane’s given a bunch of good reasons why over at Kiwiblog, as does Zen Tiger in his post. This business of trying to “out” anonymous bloggers is a disgusting one, and those engaging in it should be told to fuck off right from the word go.

    BB – if I understand this correctly, you’re saying that supporting media owners getting involved in local issues means one must then agree with them on whatever issue they get involved in? That’s one helluva non sequitur there…

  167. merl 167
    21 January 2008 at 9:05 am

    Dad4Justice “Just imagine the up roar if National did this ?”

    Yes, this is a good point. What would the left’s response be if an equivalent ‘right’ site was receiving similar support from National?

  168. James Kearney 168
    21 January 2008 at 9:09 am

    merl: they are, and they’re clearly getting more than a few donated IP clusters passed on to them on a temporary basis. David Farrar is employed full time at National HQ, ostensibly to blog, and he clearly has the inside running on National’s PR tactics. It’s a bit hypocritical for him to feign outrage over this storm in a teacup.

  169. Peak Oil Conspiracy 169
    21 January 2008 at 9:22 am

    James Kearney:

    I do hope you have indisputable evidence to back up these potentially defamatory claims:

    (1) David Farrar [among others] is getting more than a few donated IP clusters passed on to him on a temporary basis.
    (2) David Farrar is employed full time at National HQ, ostensibly to blog.
    (3) David Farrar clearly has the inside running on National’s PR tactics.
    (4) It’s a bit hypocritical for David Farrar to feign outrage over this storm in a teacup.

    In combination, your innuendo being that David Farrar is being paid to promote National’s talking points. Your (4) can’t serve any other useful purpose.

    Now, my understanding is that some of this is factually incorrect, which tends to leave you exposed. Am I wrong? What specific evidence can you share with us?

  170. Insolent Prick 170
    21 January 2008 at 10:09 am

    PM:

    The issue isn’t about outing anonymous bloggers. The issue is about disclosing relevant interest. I blog anonymously, but if somebody asks me whether I am a National Party member, I will confirm it. If somebody asks me whether I pay the top marginal tax rate and will benefit from lower taxes, I will confirm that also.

    The Standard has championed the cause of the Electoral Finance Act, and parroted Labour’s line about it being used to stop the likes of the Exclusive Brethren engaging anonymously in political debate. Evidently the problem with the Exclusive Brethren was that they did not disclose their links to the National Party.

    It is absolutely relevant if the Standard’s authors are employees of the EPMU. It is also absolutely relevant if the Standard is subsidised by the Labour Party. That the Standard believed for so long that it could conceal that information while demanding everybody else disclose their connections is astonishing.

  171. dad4justice 171
    21 January 2008 at 10:20 am

    James Kearney, as I’m a good legal eagle, I’ll think you’ll find yourself facing possible litigation if your comments are in fact untruthful ?

    If the standards authors are employed by EPMU ,then this is criminal matter , against the law and police should shut down this blog immediately after the arrests .

  172. the sprout 172
    21 January 2008 at 10:24 am

    IP
    “The issue is about disclosing relevant interest”

    guess your one eye has never noticed but at the top-right of the
    Standard’ front-page it states:

    “The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0”

    this blog’s alignment with the left isn’t exactly a secret, unlike say Shadbolt’s sponsorship by the Talleys was, or National’s sponsorship by the Exclusive Brethren was.
    the right’s faux outrage at DPF’s non-discovery demonstrates

    a) how effective the Standard has been in destroying the efficacy of sewers and sewerage-masters like Kiwiblog and DPF

    b) how very desperate National is to try and tarnish its opponents with its own reputation of shadey incredibility.

  173. the sprout 173
    21 January 2008 at 10:25 am

    “at the top-right”

    by that i mean the other right

  174. merl 174
    21 January 2008 at 10:26 am

    Give it a rest, dad.

  175. Robinsod 175
    21 January 2008 at 10:26 am

    IP – Why is it relevant who employs the Standard’s authors? Is it relevant who employs you? You’re doing a nice job of appearing reasonable Prick but what you’re asking is for people to expose themselves to personal risk and you know it.

    I’ve previously stated I’ve had to delist from the phone book and go on the unpublished role since Whale did the lord’s work and outed me but to be fair I’ve been a real wind-up merchant. I’ve never seen the Standard’s authors make personal attacks and yet they have been personally attacked from day one.

    Here’s an example of something from the current kiwiblog thread:

    .just like the pervert Benson-Pope, the thug Mallard, the drink-driver Dyson, the racist Cunliffe, the thieving Cullen, the fraudulent Clark, the pisshead Barker, etc, etc…

    ..a filthy, stinking Labour liar.

    and there’s plenty more where that comes from.

    Now if you were one of the Standard’s author’s would you really want this person knowing who you were?

  176. PaulL 176
    21 January 2008 at 10:27 am

    Sprout – you’re falling into the sonic trap of not following the talking points. Earlier on this thread it was claimed that the standard doesn’t support the Labour party, and in fact encourages people to vote green.

  177. dad4justice 177
    21 January 2008 at 10:30 am

    Bullshit sprout, you have been promoting this blog on kiwiblog as a labour party blog and you called that other nitwit show blog snog shit hole of malicious lies kiwiblogblog !! On it you called me a fucking mental case . I am pissed off if some of that $47 Million spin money was used to get my blood pressure going ?

  178. the sprout 178
    21 January 2008 at 10:30 am

    fair enough PL, but i think the comment was more along the lines that is doesn’t exclusively endorse Labour, sometimes is critical of Labour, and sometimes endorses the Greens – all perfectly consistent with position of left-alignment, but not consistent of the alleged position of Labour controlled.

  179. milo 179
    21 January 2008 at 10:32 am

    Under the circumstances, I think The Standard has to make a clearer disclosure statement about any Labour party support.

    Also, as I said on Kiwiblog, if there is substantial paid time from the EPMU supporting The Standard, this should be disclosed. But I agree that informal support, including the occasional post from work during a lunch break (or whatever), is covered by the disclosures already made.

    Personally, I see nothing wrong with the EPMU supporting The Standard, subject to the provisions of the EFA (if applicable), of course. And personally, I’m a fan of anonymity; just not for donations.

    I will, of course, continue to enjoy the delicious irony of this debate !

  180. Peak Oil Conspiracy 180
    21 January 2008 at 10:46 am

    Robinsod:

    “‘ve previously stated I’ve had to delist from the phone book and go on the unpublished role since Whale did the lord’s work and outed me but to be fair I’ve been a real wind-up merchant.”

    I’m on record as saying I’m sick of this whole “outing” business – on all sides – but are you SURE Whaleoil “outed” you? I distinctly recall you posting your name on Kiwiblog (through providing an email address). At the time you expressed doubts about the wisdom of doing so. I’m 100% sure on this, but internet search engines aren’t always what they’re made out to be.

  181. outofbed 181
    21 January 2008 at 10:55 am

    luckily they updated the servers to cope with all this traffic about updating the servers

  182. Robinsod 182
    21 January 2008 at 11:02 am

    POC – I did provide my email address which was stupid but at the time I hadn’t been commenting for long. Nobody picked up on it and I left it at that. Whale decided to make a big deal of it much later on (and many threats later also). When he did so he also included a threat:

    http://whaleoil.co.nz/?q=node/5433#comment-10181

    Even though I have made some robust comments and some pretty blue jokes I have never threatened the physical safety of another commentator. I’m sure if I wrote a newzblog post giving DPF’s address (which I assume is in the phone book) and saying I planned to catch up with him for “an offline chat” about his behaviour, I’d be (rightly) decried by the right as a psycho. What do you think?

  183. Inventory2 183
    21 January 2008 at 11:31 am

    Robinsod said “Even though I have made some robust comments and some pretty blue jokes I have never threatened the physical safety of another commentator.”

    Robinsod, care to reflect on that? You and I have had a few verbal jousts from time to time (and you’re still welcome to post at Keeping Stck – I need the traffic!) which I thoroughly enjoyed, but your obsession with Bevan’s mother might have been a touch over the top. Certainly, if that was my mother you were talking about, I’d regard it as more than a “pretty blue joke”.

  184. Robinsod 184
    21 January 2008 at 11:35 am

    IV2 – it was a “your momma” joke – shows like southpark are full of them and much worse, I admit this humour isn’t to everyone’s taste but plenty of people did find it funny. It was certainly not threatening. I would suggest that you need to stop being so politically correct.

  185. dad4justice 185
    21 January 2008 at 11:47 am

    robinsod , you are skating on thin ice, as the recent change in attitude is astonishing . I mean you talk in riddles and your “few verbal jousts ” makes me think you aren’t the fill tin of biscuits matey .

  186. deemac 186
    21 January 2008 at 12:06 pm

    why do people even bother to respond to these right wing idiots? even when their arguments are definitively refuted they take no notice. They are not here to debate, just to waste our time – so just ignore them. I gave up reading their comments ages ago because I do not have hours and hours to read abuse and rubbish. They must have no lives at all to spend so much time contributing to something they don’t agree with; why doesn’t that surprise me?.

  187. Insolent Prick 187
    21 January 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Just a few days ago Robinsod was claiming that I was on his “shitlist”, and bragged that it was very difficult to get off the said shitlist. He also bragged for several months that he was stalking me, and claimed universal support from his left-wing friends in a campaign to out me. This, despite the fact that I have never outed him, or encouraged anybody else to do so.

    More recent posts from IrishBill and Tane suggest that they have actively discouraged Robinsod from stalking me, quite contrary to Robinsod’s assertions of support from left-wing bloggers.

    I don’t care about the names of the Standard’s authors, where they live, or how much they earn. But for a group of people who regularly champion the cause of transparency, using Nicky Hagar’s book as their bible and insisting that DPF be named as a National Party stooge every time he is quoted in the media, it is astonishing that the Standard have done everything to conceal their direct subsidy by the Labour Party. It is equally astonishing that several of the Standard’s authors are, according to left-wing political science academic Bryce Edwards, employees of the EPMU, and that the Standard has done everything to obfuscate and lie about that connection.

    The Standard’s authors’ identities isn’t material. Their connections to the Labour Party, and its largest affiliate union, is material and absolutely relevant. It makes a sham of the Standard’s claim to be an independent, left-wing blog.

    An appropriate disclosure statement by the Standard should read:

    “The Standard is proudly supported by the Labour Party, which subsidises the hosting of this blog. Some Standard authors are active Labour Party members. Some Standard authors are also paid employees of the EPMU. Some Standard authors are employed by Parliamentary Services and work in the Beehive.”

    That would be an honest, spin-free disclosure statement disclosing the relevant political links of the Standard’s authors, without identifying the personalities involved.

    Unfortunately, the Standard is only concerned with exposing the links of right-wing commentators, while doing everything to conceal and lie about its own political connections.

  188. Inventory2 188
    21 January 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Robinsod – know me before you judge me, as the commercials say! Those who do will tell you that whilst I have many faults and foibles, political correctness is definitely not one of them!

  189. dave 189
    21 January 2008 at 12:21 pm

    The Standard is proudly supported by the Labour Party, which subsidises the hosting of this blog. Some Standard authors are active Labour Party members. Some Standard authors are also paid employees of the EPMU. Some Standard authors are employed by Parliamentary Services and work in the Beehive.

    So, Tane, RobinSOD etc, which parts of the above statement are not true? I suggest the ” proudly” part is not true…. Perhaps you can add “Some standard authors are paid by the taxpayer and blog during work time”

  190. dad4justice 190
    21 January 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Every comment I mention roger nome in seems to vanish ?
    Strange.

  191. dad4justice 191
    21 January 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Attention roger nome – why are you and Craig R backstabbing the fuck out of me on kiwiblog at present ? I can’t fight back you #####

  192. Robinsod 192
    21 January 2008 at 12:40 pm

    IV2 – I know that, I was just teasing, but you know full well that I was riffing off a joke that’s pretty acceptable in mainstream culture so I’m surprised you seem offended by it.

    Prick – I never claimed universal support and I never outed you. You don’t know shit about who writes for the standard. Instead you seem intent on stringing together a bunch of rumours and treating them as like facts. You’ve repeatedly said it’s important people know where the authors of the Standard work but I’ve noticed you don’t have your workplace listed on your blog. Why not?

    Dave – I’m not a part of the standard. I know a couple of the posters and I comment here. I’ve noticed you make comments during normal work hours too, shouldn’t you say who you work for?

  193. dave 193
    21 January 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Yes I’m happy to say who I work for. Very happy. I am a full time student over the semesters and a part time student currently and a full time caregiver. Now, lets see you do the same….You guys are hypocrites. You want me to declare my work, youwant DPF to declare his Natinal Party links, butwhen it comes to teh Standartds links to the Labour “movement” you are suddenly quiet

    Its nota good look is it. your reputatin as a blog has just sunk. Noboldy takes you seriously.

  194. Insolent Prick 194
    21 January 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Robinsod,

    I realise I say this with the risk that you will resume your stalking campaign against me. I don’t have my workplace listed on my blog since I’m a director and shareholder in my company, and my company is so far removed from politics as to make the matter irrelevant. I would be quite happy to make a disclosure statement if there were any connection to politics and my professional life.

    Clearly, the Standard’s authors do have major political connections. Working in the Beehive, and the Labour Party’s largest affiliate union, are directly relevant to the Standard’s authorship. Given that the Standard regularly taunts the msm, and DPF, for not disclosing that he is a National Party stooge every time he is mentioned in the media, it is rank hypocrisy for the Standard not to disclose their political links.

    The Standard could comfortably do so without naming the identities of the persons involved.

  195. Robinsod 195
    21 January 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Dave – The issue you brought up is “who” not “what”. And yet you’ve said “what” you do, not “who” you do it for. Different issue Dave, you’re being disingenuous.

  196. dave 196
    21 January 2008 at 12:56 pm

    PS – this declaration is proudly listed on my blog. Lets see the same for this blog. Hypocrites. Ask me to do something and not do it yourselves. Its the Labour Party Standard form of behaviour, it appears.

  197. dave 197
    21 January 2008 at 1:04 pm

    I am a full time student, I am a parent. I do it for myseslf. Like all others in my situation. You really are an immature idiot, as well as a hypocrite, RobinSOD.

  198. dad4justice 198
    21 January 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Come on Tane – IP and Dave have valid points .
    Could you answer them thank you.
    How much money honey ?

  199. Daveo 199
    21 January 2008 at 1:10 pm

    I think the problem with DPF was never that he had a right-wing blog. It was that he went into the mainstream media where people don’t know his background and pretended to be an independent political commentator while pushing National party spin.

    The standard doesn’t comment in the msm and given their anonymity I doubt they’d venture into that arena anyway. So I don’t see the need for anything more than they have on the site declaring their sympathy with the NZ labour movement. When you come here you know it’s a left-wing blog and that’s fine by me. The only reason I can see why IP wants the standard to tell him where they work is because he actually does want to out them, he’s just scared if he does so Robinsod will out him in return.

    The line that he just wants places of employment is absolute rubbish because he knows in this country that’s as good as outing names.

    One more thing. Why does IP feel the need to lie and make things up all the time? He’s a smart guy when he wants to be, he doesn’t need to sink to that level.

  200. Robinsod 200
    21 January 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Sorry Dave, when I read “caregiver” I assumed you were a professional caregiver. So, what you studying?

  201. Psycho Milt 201
    21 January 2008 at 1:14 pm

    So in the interests of disclosure, who do you work for, IP? Is it a branch of capitalism (private company, limited liability company, branch of a multinational corporation etc)? If so, this connection to the parties of Capital should be disclosed. The amount this employer donates to the parties of Capital should also be disclosed, as should time spent blogging or commenting in support of the parties of Capital on that employer’s dime.

    Or, of course, we could all just get a grip on ourselves.

  202. the sprout 202
    21 January 2008 at 1:14 pm

    well said daveo.

  203. dave 203
    21 January 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Robinsod, I`ll tell you what I am studying, my shoe size, the number of cars I own, even the number of CDs in my CD collection if you want, if only you`ll tell me your fucken NAME. That’s all. Who you work for would be nice.

  204. Robinsod 204
    21 January 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Dave – you know my name. It’s been put around everywhere. Why don’t you tell me yours? I was actually trying to apologise for misinterpreting your earlier comment and try to make some friendly conversation. Oh and I’m a contractor – I work for lots of people.

  205. dad4justice 205
    21 January 2008 at 1:25 pm

    [Tane: And that’s it, you’re banned for life Dad. There is no excuse to threaten people with violence, however deranged and comical it might look.]

  206. Insolent Prick 206
    21 January 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Yes, Phsycho, I work for a branch of capitalism. In my role, I do not account to anybody other than the shareholders of my company, of which I am the principal.

    My firm does not donate money to any political party, political cause, or charity. It does, however, pay significant sums of money to the New Zealand Treasury.

    I have never been employed by a political party, a lobby group, or in the public service. I have, however, made financial contributions to the National and Act parties over the last fifteen years. I have held elected, voluntary positions in the National Party, over the last fifteen years, although I have not served in an elected position for at least five years. During the time I did hold elected office, I did not receive a cent for my voluntary work. I paid my own expenses to and from party conferences and meetings, conference fees, and accommodation. On one occasion, in 1994 at a party conference, I didn’t register until the last minute, and accommodation in that town was booked out. I crashed on a couch in a hotel room booked by other National Party members, and despite offering to contribute to the costs of the accommodation, this was declined. In that sense, my activity was subsidised by others. On the other hand, I have paid the taxi fares in shared taxis to and from party gatherings. By any balanced measure, others have been subsidised by me more often than I have been subsidised by them.

    In my time blogging, I have never hidden my National Party connections. The Standard should do likewise and disclose its connections to the Labour Party–including subsidised hosting of this blog, the fact that some of the Standard’s authors work in the beehive, and the fact that some of its authors work for the Labour Party’s’ largest affiliate union.

    Trying to obfuscate over this just paints the Standard as very hollow.

  207. Robinsod 207
    21 January 2008 at 1:36 pm

    IP – as I recall you’ve never once stated your affiliations to the national party. Nor do you have such a disclaimer on your blog (not that you ever post there anymore).

  208. Inventory2 208
    21 January 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Robinsod said “Oh and I’m a contractor – I work for lots of people.”

    Including the NZLP? Sorry bro, couldn’t resist that!

  209. dave 209
    21 January 2008 at 1:47 pm

    I didnt ask what you did, I asked who you worked for and what your name was. you can state it here.

  210. Insolent Prick 210
    21 January 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Robinsod,

    Just a few months ago Roger Gnome claimed that I had said I had been employed by the National Party. I said that I had made no claims of the sort, and explained that he may have been confused with suggestions that I had held elected office in the National Party, was a financial member and contributor. I explained to Roger that far from me receiving support from National, the cashflow was in the very opposite direction. Many of the posts on my blog refer to my attendances at National Party gatherings in the past. DPF and others have said that they have known me over many years from my involvement in the National Party. Peter Cresswell has niggled me for my National Party connections, and asked me defend, on behalf of the National Party, some of its wetter policies.

    In the latter case, I have declined to do so. I am not a spokesman for the National Party, and retain the right to criticise the Nats when they become too wet. Following a subsequent wind-up from PC on the pink tories, he said that he would never criticise me for being left-wing or an apologist for Labour Lite policies. In the past, I have criticised the National Party for being overly cautious in their social policies, tax policies, and local government reform, among others. My criticism of National has been far more direct than anything I have ever seen from the Standard criticising Labour.

    And now we know why. The Standard is in Labour’s pocket, despite the Standard lying about its connections to the Labour Party, and the Labour’s largest affiliate union, since its inception.

  211. Robinsod 211
    21 January 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Dave – As you well know my name is Mike Porton. I’m not going to give you my client list becaue it would be a breach of confidentiality (oh and it’s none of your friggin business. Now mate what’s your last name (I’m assuming Dave is your real first name).

    IP – I don’t think I saw that thread and as you fail to give examples and have a reputation as a proven liar I’ll withhold judgement until I see something concrete.

    when you say:

    My criticism of National has been far more direct than anything I have ever seen from the Standard criticising Labour.

    The Standard is in Labour’s pocket, despite the Standard lying about its connections to the Labour Party, and the Labour’s largest affiliate union, since its inception.

    You do so with no evidence whatsoever – I would like to see a link where you encouraged people to vote for a party other than National as Irish Bill has encouraged people to vote for a party other than Labour.

    I would like to see your proof that the standard has been in Labour’s pocket since its inception (especially since the labour server was only made available early this moth by the look of things).

    I would also like to see you provide proof that the EPMU has been involved.

    The answer is you can’t, Prick. You knowingly make shit up without proof – that makes you a liar.

    And while you’re at it IP, you asked for the name of the employer of the standard’s authors not for what they did. You offered what you did in return. A more equivalent call would be if you offered the name of your company. But you won’t because you are a coward and a hypocrite.

  212. Insolent Prick 212
    21 January 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Robinsod:

    Are you denying that any of the Standard’s authors are employed by the EPMU? Because that would be interesting. Tane hasn’t issued any such denial.

  213. Robinsod 213
    21 January 2008 at 2:44 pm

    IP – I’m not denying or confirming anything because I’m not gonna get caught up in your creepy little games. You’re the one who’s telling the story mate – why don’t you provide some proof? Oh, that’s right you can’t because you don’t deal in facts, just smarmy innuendo.

  214. Daveo 214
    21 January 2008 at 2:51 pm

    IP- the original allegation was made by Bryce Edwards and has since been retracted. You’re figthing a lonely, creepy battle here mate.

  215. Barnsley Bill 215
    21 January 2008 at 2:59 pm

    whew it stinks of bullshit in here, hats of to Rob though. You are really taking one for the team today. I guess wellington day was cancelled for all of you today.

    Annoying I know but any of you winners want to try answering the big question?

    Can you not see the hypocrisy in a group demanding registration of political commentators as a direct result of the EB activities at the last election, whilst hiding their own identities and being funded and supported by the labour government and supporting unions?

    I shit you not!p
    Captcha
    SHADY MISSION

  216. Robinsod 216
    21 January 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Yawn.

  217. Insolent Prick 217
    21 January 2008 at 3:06 pm

    I’m not telling the story, Robinsod. It was a claim by left-wing political science lecturer, Bryce Edwards, that EPMU employees were authors of the Standard. Tane has not denied this. He has merely said that the EPMU does not pay any of its authors to write for the Standard. That is not the same thing. The fact that Tane has been so cagey about the fact that Standard authors are employed by the EPMU is good enough for me.

    As far as any reasonable reader is concerned, if the Standard’s authors are employed by a large constituent, affiliate union of the Labour Party, and/or work in the Beehive, then they are in the Labour Party’s pocket. There is significant evidence of this from people far to the left of the political spectrum than myself. The Standard has NEVER addressed these points. Instead they have lied, obfuscated, and spun the issue.

    An allegation has been made by Bryce Edwards. I expect that somebody in the mainstream media will be asking these same questions of Mike Williams and my old friend Andrew Little in the next few days. I figure the Standard’s got about 24 hours to get their story straight. If their answers are anything like as murky as the ones Tane have offered up so far, then their will be a lot more digging.

    As for the tone of my comments criticising National, you clearly haven’t read my blog. Among several posts I have written, only one of which I’ve included otherwise the Standard’s server will block it, here I take a swipe at both Mark Blumsky and Nick Smith http://insolentprick.blogspot.com/2007/02/pull-finger.html , proposing local government reform that is at considerable odds with National Party policy.

  218. Insolent Prick 218
    21 January 2008 at 3:13 pm

    No, Daveo, the allegation hasn’t been answered at all. Bryce claimed that the Standard’s authors work in the communications unit of the EPMU. Tane responded that nobody at the Standard is paid by the EPMU to blog. Tane was very careful to obfuscate and send everybody on a false scent, without telling an outright lie.

    Tane could very easily clear up the matter–as could any of the commenters who know the Standard’s authors–by stating simply that to their knowledge, none of the Standard’s authors are employees of the EPMU. It puts a slur on the actual employees of the EPMU–who are publicly known–if the rumour about them being Standard authors is incorrect.

    Kiwiblogblog earlier made a very clear disclosure statement. Ickystinky wrote:

    “I can answer from a Kiwiblogblog perspective. We receive no money or any other material support whatsoever from any political party. We are a small group of political enthusiasts. I am not sure what we all do precisely for a living but as far as I am aware (I can speak with some understanding about four out of five of us) we are not employed by any union, political party, advocacy group, ThinkTank, PR firm or the New Zealand public service. So, in no way can you infer we have been bought. We’re amateurs, it seems.”

    I accept that statement at face value. If Tane made the same statement, I would accept it at face value. The fact that he refuses to make that statement suggests he doesn’t want to be caught out lying.

  219. Kimble 219
    21 January 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Still no post on the #1 topic of the day?

    Then again, I suppose Hollow Men can run fast because they dont have any substance holding them back.

  220. Barnsley Bill 220
    21 January 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Yawnnn…. You must be tired Rob, all the big boys must be in the arse kicking meeting leaving the juniors to do the heavy lifting.
    Anyway, back to the only question;

    Can you not see the hypocrisy in a group demanding registration of political commentators as a direct result of the EB activities at the last election, whilst hiding their own identities and being funded and supported by the labour government and supporting unions?

    Oh……. another great CAPTCHA

    HOWLAND RHETORIC

  221. the sprout 221
    21 January 2008 at 4:34 pm

    yawn. game over guys, good try but you’ve lost again.
    keep howling though i promise to read every word.

    captcha “overcooked children”

  222. PaulL 222
    21 January 2008 at 4:51 pm

    sprout: game not over. Remember the noise that the Standard made about John Key’s DVD? We all thought it was game over, then suddenly the MSM grabbed it, and Key pulled the DVD in order to cut the thing off at the knees. If the MSM grab this do you reckon Helen is still astute enough to cut the Standard off at the knees? Does she have enough control over the Standard to do so? Not game over at all I am afraid.

    [Tane: No Paul, because Helen Clark has nothing to do with the standard. I doubt she even knows it exists.]

  223. Insolent Prick 223
    21 January 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Sprout,

    The fact that Tane refuses to answer the principal question, and is spinning like there’s no tomorrow, is a story in itself. David Benson-Pope got fired for this kind of dishonesty. So too did Lianne Dalziel. Issuing denials to questions that aren’t asked, and passing it off as a denial to the initial question, isn’t looked on fondly by the press gallery. Ask Benson-Pope. Ask Lianne Dalziel. Tane’s trying to be too clever for his own good.

    I note that Tane is only answering questions on this issue at Kiwiblogblog, in the hope that this story will die a slow death at the Standard. No doubt, the Standard will soon publish a few innocuous posts about nothing in an attempt to bury this one.

    [Tane: Na, I’m actually not responding here because I’ve blown my traffic cap so my internet’s too slow to load a page with 200+ comments. That’s why I’m responding via the admin system. I’ve already responded to you Prick.]

  224. Insolent Prick 224
    21 January 2008 at 5:02 pm

    No, you haven’t responded to me, Tane. You’ve done everything except answer the principal question, raised by Bryce. I love it how you can offer such a bald assurance that some of the Standard’s authors are not blogging in work time, and expect people to believe they are working in such an unofficial capacity, when you cannot even answer a very simple question about whether any EPMU employees are Standard authors.

    Instead you’ve come up with a strategy of answering every possible question except the one asked of you. And you deliberately do so at kiwiblogblog, which you know to have much lower traffic, rather than at the Standard where the issues are raised, in an attempt to allow the issue to die a slow death.

    You are deliberately being obtuse, Tane, in a way that you would never allow DPF, or John Key, to get away with. I hear Larry Williams is now asking some questions about this. I don’t need to remind you that Don Brash came to justifiable public ridicule when he didn’t tell the whole truth about his meetings with the exclusive brethren. Instead, he gave answers that were only partially correct.

    You are doing the same, Tane, and it is a cowardly, and ultimately unsuccessful long-term strategy. Just because you don’t want to answer the hard questions now, doesn’t mean they won’t come later. You are setting yourself up for a fall because you’re deliberately being misleading.

    But keep doing it, for all I care. You’re simply setting yourself up for more questions later.

  225. the sprout 225
    21 January 2008 at 5:06 pm

    you could be right IP – there have been a lot of non-stories over the news-light holidays – if it weren’t for the fact that tomorrow is Hillary’s funeral, there’s a bloody great storm over the top half of the country, and there are multiple compelling crime stories about.
    do you think the msm will return to a non-story about blogging a few days later, and so promote one of the few mediums that regularly demonstrate the duplicity and inaccuracies of said msm?
    my money’s on Hillary taking the lead and first 10 pages or minutes of any msm outlet.

  226. sonic 226
    21 January 2008 at 5:07 pm

    “I love it how you can offer such a bald assurance that some of the Standard’s authors are not blogging in work time”

    Whats it got to do with you if they are? assuming that not all of you on the right are unemployed and that you all blog bewteen 9 and 5, I assume many of you and your chums are blogging on work time.

    [Tane: Yep, the funny thing is the reason we’re a collective in the first place is because we don’t have the time to blog as much as we’d like to as we all need to earn a living. I’ve shown earlier that I’ve made only five of the last thirty posts, and that’s going back a month. It’s similar for the other contributors. We each do a little bit, usually on things we have a bit of prior knowledge on, and together we create a reasonably up to date, well researched website. It doesn’t take a hell of a lot of time, so this whole line of attack is disingenuous.]

  227. Robinsod 227
    21 January 2008 at 5:10 pm

    I’m not telling the story, Robinsod

    Yes you are Prick – Bryce retracted his claim. You even lie about this.

    The fact that nobody will indulge your creepy little outing games is
    no proof of anything you dipshit.

    Now Prick, I read your little post and apart from the fact you can’t write to save yourself I noticed one thing. You never said don’t vote National. If you’ll recall my question to you was:
    I would like to see a link where you encouraged people to vote for a party other than National as Irish Bill has encouraged people to vote for a party other than Labour.

    I figure if you’re gonna bang on about your independance then that would be easy. But no. You failed.

    So again Prick:

    I would like to see a link where you encouraged people to vote for a party other than National as Irish Bill has encouraged people to vote for a party other than Labour.

    I would like to see your proof that the standard has been in Labour’s pocket since its inception (especially since the labour server was only made available early this moth by the look of things).

    I would also like to see you provide proof that the EPMU has been involved.

    We’re all waiting Prick – your outrage is starting to sound a little hollow my lying friend.

  228. the sprout 228
    21 January 2008 at 5:14 pm

    From DPF on Public Address

    “Paul: To my immense surprise the comment above appeared as user:whaleoil instead of as user:dpf. I have absolutely no idea how or why but checking the page I then saw somehow I was logged in as whaleoil.”

    http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,917,hard_news_monster_weekend.sm?p=39619#post39619

    that is definitely one of the more surreal moments in my blogging history.

  229. Insolent Prick 229
    21 January 2008 at 5:20 pm

    I don’t have any proof that the EPMU is involved in the Standard. I took Tane at his word that the EPMU does not pay to publish the Standard.

    Tane’s deliberate obfuscation and evasiveness over whether any EPMU employees are Standard authors–a point raised by Bryce and which Tane never denied or even addressed–does not inspire confidence in Tane’s response.

    I agree that Bryce retracted his assertion that EPMU employees were authors of the Standard. I picked this retraction up after it was pointed out to me. I can only assume that Bryce took Tane for his word, and assumed that Tane was answering the question that Bryce actually asked. You may have noted that when Bryce made the allegation, I suggested to him at kiwiblog that he should retract it if Tane denied it. Bryce had the integrity to do so when he believed that Tane denied the point.

    I take a different view. I don’t believe Tane addressed the issue at all. Tane has not said that EPMU employees are not among the Standard’s authors. He has answered every possible question under the sun, except that one. That is cynical spin, and if John Key ever obfuscated like that, the Standard would be hounding him.

  230. PaulL 230
    21 January 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Tane, if DPF was employed by the National party, it would be a big deal. Even if he told us he was blogging in his own time. If he were employed by the Business Roundtable it would also be a big deal. I’m not sure why you think it wouldn’t be relevant whether the Standard authors were Labour party employees, or employees of a closely affiliated union.

    I’m not saying it makes all the posts here irrelevant, just that you would read them with a different view if you knew the person writing them was potentially a Labour employee, or an EPMU employee, than you would read them thinking it was some average Joe who had a left leaning outlook.

    If you think that isn’t the case, why have you and some of your fellow travellers been so concerned about whether the MSM correctly describe DPF as a right wing commentator, and as a National party member and close associate (which DPF discloses very clearly on his blog). It obviously makes a difference.

    There are two ways to answer the question. One is to state that none of the posters are employed in any of these organisations. If you don’t want to get into denying it, then simply state that they may be, and that readers should assume that they are. If, as you say, it makes no difference, then how would it cause any pain to just write that in the “about us” section of the site?

    [Tane: We’ve never had a problem with DPF’s position on his blog – people there know what his angle is and that’s fine. The concern has always been that when he crosses over to the mainstream media he’s often sold as an independent commentator when in fact he’s far from it. The wider public aren’t aware of his political bias in the same way as the readership of his blog are and we felt this was something that needed disclosing. I’ve gone on the record and said I don’t blame DPF for this, and have put it down to sloppy or, in the case of Larry Williams, biased journalism. The Standard doesn’t comment in the msm, and we have a clear statement of our political sympathies on the front page.

    I’m not going to play Prick’s games here – it’s none of his business where any of our contributors work, as I’ve explained over at KBB, and I’m not going to start denying them in some kind of process of elimination. He’s said he’ll accept our word so he can accept the fact that we’re employed by a range of different organisations and not one of us writes on behalf or even in consultation with their employer. It’s that simple.]

  231. Barnsley Bill 231
    21 January 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Rob, you are not looking well mate.
    But blogging in defense of the AOS from your sick bed is a top effort.
    I don’t care what every body else is saying I think you are a top rooster.
    http://robinslob.blogspot.com/

  232. Barnsley Bill 232
    21 January 2008 at 5:35 pm

    [Deleted, as post was not by BB]

  233. Outofbed 233
    21 January 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Sorry that was me a computer glitch

  234. Santi 234
    21 January 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Come on Tane, come clean. How many pieces of silver a month you get from the Labour Party?

    Despite your pathetic attempts at deflecting the issue you have not answered any of the questions posed by IP.

  235. PaulL 235
    21 January 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Nice trick “alias BB”. The lack of a link does give it away though. Should I take to posting pretending to be Tane? “Oh, just meant to confirm while I’m at it, I and all my friends work at the EPMU, and in fact Helen phones in orders every morning for us, sometimes twice on a big news day.”

  236. Robinsod 236
    21 January 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Bill. Are you in love with me?

    IP – you know for someone with no proof (it took you a long time to admit it – do you have issues with the truth?) you sure sound certain there’s a vast left wing conspiracy. I’m also still waiting for you to disclose the name of your company too. I mean I’m sure you contract to someone – who might they be? Surely it could have bearing on your position as a high profile blogger.

    So when did you last update your site anyway?

  237. Insolent Prick 237
    21 January 2008 at 5:43 pm

    It isn’t that simple at all, Tane.

    Bryce made an allegation that some EPMU were also Standard authors. You have deliberately spun and obfuscated, and answered every question except that one. We can guarantee that if the initial allegation had been that some Standard employees were employed by the Nurses Organisation, you would have denied it immediately, because it’s untrue.

    The issue has never been whether the Standard’s authors blog in their work time. I have taken you at your word that this is the case. What I find astonishing is that you can so brazenly obfuscate over the Standard’s political connections.

    It is absolutely relevant to your message, and your position, if the Standard’s authors are employed by a major affiliate union of the Labour Party, and/or employed in the Beehive. You’re actually just inviting a witch-hunt by the mainstream media by being so dishonest now.

    You could comfortably make a general, and honest disclosure about the affiliations of the Standard’s authors, such as: “The Standard’s authors include employees of the EPMU, and the PPTA, and employees of Ministerial Services working in the Beehive. Some of the Standard’s authors are active Labour Party members.”

    That would be an honest disclosure of relevant interests, if that were the case. But instead, the Standard is modeling transparency not on the rhetoric it used to promote the Electoral Finance Bill, but on the amateur half-truths that Don Brash used, when he was trying to be too clever, to explain his meetings with the Exclusive Brethren.

    The media don’t like half-truths, Tane. Start getting your story straight. Try, for once, by answering the direct question. Are any of the Standard’s authors employed by the EPMU?

  239. sonic 239
    21 January 2008 at 5:58 pm

    “It is absolutely relevant to your message, and your position, if the Standard’s authors are employed by a major affiliate union of the Labour Party,”

    No it’s not,

    However if you vould give us a list of everyone you have contracted for in the last 10 years (just so we can check it against your blog posts) that would be helpful.

    Oh whats that, you don’t see what your job has to with you political opinions?

    Oh I see.

  240. Insolent Prick 240
    21 January 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Sonic:

    I have never been employed by, or contracted to, any political party, any branch of the public service, or any organisation that could be considered a third party under your much-heralded Electoral Finance Act.

    It’s a pity that Tane can’t say the same about the Standard’s authors.

  241. sonic 241
    21 January 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Sorry IP, not good enough I’m afraid.

    We need the full list just so we can see for ourselves, indeed we may need to contact a few of the companies, just to check up you are telling the truth,

    I’m sure you will not have a problem with that, after all you want to know the name of these bloggers employers, so it’s only fair that we get the same from you!

  242. Robinsod 242
    21 January 2008 at 6:07 pm

    hey Prick – I thought you were making a breakthrough when you finally admitted you had no proof. Turns out I was wrong you’ve just decided you don’t need any. I heard you fuck pigs. Until you show some proof to deny it your letting us all down with your deception.

    Now y’see how shill and stupid the argument you’re making is?

    Oh and Prick? I was banned from Kiwiblog for less than this, the fact that you’re still allowed to post even though all you do is lie and that Tane even answers your questions just amazes me. You seem to think it’s your right.

  243. Insolent Prick 243
    21 January 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Sonic,

    You clearly haven’t been following the argument. I have said repeatedly that if Tane discloses that no employees of the Labour Party, a Labour Party-affiliated union, or an employee of ministerial services, are Standard authors, then I will accept him at his word. You, Sonic, have said elsewhere that you are not employed in the public service, and that you are not a Labour Party member. I accept you at your word.

    Except the Standard won’t make that disclosure statement. They have been blogging for months now, championing the cause for public accountability of political connections, while doing everything in their power to conceal their own.

  244. sonic 244
    21 January 2008 at 6:16 pm

    Sorry IP, I’m less trusting.

    Names of last three employers please, otherwise I’m afraid no-one has to take your demands for other people’s business even slightly seriously.

  245. Robinsod 245
    21 January 2008 at 6:18 pm

    have said repeatedly that if Tane discloses that no employees of the Labour Party, a Labour Party-affiliated union, or an employee of ministerial services, are Standard authors, then I will accept him at his word.

    No IP I don’t think you follow the argument – why would anyone bother to answer the questions of a man who fucks pigs?

    Oh and you’ve still not provide a link where you’ve said “don’t vote national” (whereas the standard has advised not to vote Labour – what lickspittles!).

    Sheesh boy you lie like a snake and you fuck pigs. I think you need some help IP…

  246. Pig fucker 246
    21 January 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Hi sodomite !!

  247. Insolent Prick 247
    21 January 2008 at 6:39 pm

    You’re not recruiting me, Sonic. Nobody has ever seriously alleged that I’m in the employ of the National Party or its affiliates. A distinguished political science lecturer–and a left wing one at that–has, on the other hand, raised very serious questions about the affiliations of the Standard’s authors.

    All these are questions that Tane refuses to answer.

  248. Barnsley Bill 248
    21 January 2008 at 6:42 pm

    Rob… it isn’t me. Too funny for my efforts mate, however D4J has found you and is spreading his “specialness” on the comments.

    It is a good job labour have got in over the ditch. most of the posters here will be job hunting in the unlikely event of national managing to grab the treasury benches.

  249. Robinsod 249
    21 January 2008 at 6:44 pm

    A distinguished political science lecturer

    No he’s not Prick – in fact he’s taken a hiding on the standard in political debate. You’re lying again. Between that and the pig fucking I don’t know how you can sleep at night.

  250. Psycho Milt 250
    21 January 2008 at 6:50 pm

    I have said repeatedly that if Tane discloses that no employees of the Labour Party, a Labour Party-affiliated union, or an employee of ministerial services, are Standard authors, then I will accept him at his word.

    In other words, you’re still fishing for who these guys are while trying to remain anonymous yourself, and the correct answer remains “Fuck off, cunt.” I’m amazed none of the blog owners has yet offered this answer.

  251. Outofbed 251
    21 January 2008 at 6:52 pm

    in the unlikely event of national managing to grab the treasury benches.

    I agree with bill

  253. Barnsley Bill 253
    21 January 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Didn’t this descend quickly into the swamp.
    Heather…. heather ……. heather if you are online, get Mike to pull the plug quickly. And somebody give rob a medal, he has fought the good fight all day.

  254. Kimble 254
    21 January 2008 at 7:10 pm

    PM, I think you missed this relevant passage.

    “They have been blogging for months now, championing the cause for public accountability of political connections, while doing everything in their power to conceal their own.”

  255. Robinsod 255
    21 January 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Bill – I figured if it’s good enough for the 36th President of the great democracy of the world it’s good enough for ‘sod.

    You’ve been on these threads all day mate – aren’t you worried that when WINZ finds out how you spend your days they’ll stop your sickness benefit and put you on some kinda work scheme?

  256. Robinsod 256
    21 January 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Kimble – I think you missed this point: even if the Standard is sitting on a temporary server lent to they by labour that’s only been the situation since early this month. And what political connections are you talking about?

  257. Barnsley Bill 257
    21 January 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Now I know you are tired and worn out rob.
    Your fevered imaginings are writ large all over the AOS today.
    Today has been a happy confluence of circumstances for me.
    It has rained fairly hard in the Bay of Islands all day and the contractors cancelled the hay making because of it. So instead of playing my usual role as indolent squire looking down upon the serfs I have spent the day in front of Fox news with a laptop in one hand and some JW Black in the other.

  258. Robinsod 258
    21 January 2008 at 7:25 pm

    So you’re a farmer now Bill? That’s odd ‘cos the last time you claimed to be wealthy and successful you were an IT expert. What’s next mate? Astronaut? Pirate? First Lady???

  259. Barnsley Bill 259
    21 January 2008 at 7:50 pm

    retired rob, if retired is the right word for it. Living in the Bay of islands with a few acres enjoying life and trying not to take myself or anybody else too seriously. And yes we had (still have in a small way) a business that offered telco and IT services nationally from auck until late 2005.
    Personally I think it is time everybody took a breath and a step back, you (until today) have calmed down and the excesses of your early posts had/have been forgiven, your calming down coincided with you being named which I did not agree with (but did take advantage of), lets hope we can all resume “normal” hostilities once the beast has made tane move his blog to a place that does not cause all of you so much embarassment.

    extraordinary, somebody is really taking the piss.
    CAPTCHA
    RED VIOLATION

  260. Robinsod 260
    21 January 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Oh c’mon bill – you’ve got to admit the pig post is funny. I mean I pinched the joke off a republican!

  261. Barnsley Bill 261
    21 January 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Have you seen any word of criticism from me?
    Both your posts on pigs are hilarious

  262. Insolent Prick 262
    21 January 2008 at 8:07 pm

    I see that Larry Williams raised this issue today. http://newstalkzb.co.nz/thisweek/hourrecs/Mon, Jan 21 16.00 trn-newstalk-zb-akl.asf have a look at 14:48 in. Looks like the media are already onto it.

    It may well be that Tane’s absence on-line today is because he’s been fielding phone calls from Mike Williams and Andrew Little to explain his decision to lie on his blog about the political affiliations of his authors.

    Telling half-truths is not a smart idea, Tane.

  263. Robinsod 263
    21 January 2008 at 8:17 pm

    Hey IP(f) – fucking pigs isn’t very smart either. Think of what they could catch. On a more serious note, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone call Larry Williams “the media”. I see you saw that mentioned on KB and then frittered away your evening looking for it IP(F) – I would’ve thought you’d be out there “shagging hot chicks” rather than sifting through deadtime dross looking for any tiny thing to feed your spite. I guess not.

    You need a break IP(F) – could I suggest cuba? Perhaps the bay of pigs.

  264. the sprout 264
    21 January 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Who’s Larry Williams been taking voice lessons from, John Banks?

    Sounds a lot like the only “independent expert” David Farrar wrote the “story” for him. About as long and interesting as a Bog post too, even Williams (often quite good at mock-outrage) sounds like he can barely keep awake till the end of the piece.

  265. the sprout 265
    21 January 2008 at 8:30 pm

    btw IP – who do you work for?

    why did you post more than 3,000 words here in one evening, opposing the EFB on the night National tried its lame arsed filibustering?

    just a passionate hobbyist are you?

  266. Barnsley Bill 266
    21 January 2008 at 8:35 pm

    cuba… bay of pigs… comedy gold. JWB sprayed forth from my nostrils.
    Rob you are a bastard (he mumbles through a hankie, trying to stop the stinging).

  267. Billy 267
    21 January 2008 at 8:58 pm

    Dad, stop posting under Sonic’s name. We’re all onto you.

  269. Billy 269
    21 January 2008 at 9:20 pm

    What a funny day.

    I know no-one in blogosphere. I judge them all by what they say.

    I am a right winger. So I have always been inclined to think all of Tane’s “DPF what’s your game [insert conspiracy about being in the pay of a the vast right wing conspiracy]” posts were all paranoia. Maybe I am naive.

    I am not going to lie: when I read DPF’s post, I was delighted. The Standard being plausibly exposed as being potentially involved in exactly what they have tirelessly accused DPF of doing. What delicious irony.

    But then I remember Hanlon’s Razor: don’t attribute to maliciousness that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. And, for the same reason I suspect (without knowing) that DPF is just a guy who is interested in politics and is a right winger by conviction, I suspect that the Standard people are just people who are interested in politics and are left wingers by conviction.

    Now maybe I am just naive and Heather Simpson is smirking whilst composing her next post as Tane. Almost certainly Nih will pop up and call me gay. But I suspect I am closer to the truth about both sides than any partisan hack will admit.

    And isn’t it funny that, pretend as we like that this is all about ideology, what really gets everyone’s juices flowing is a good old conspiracy theory where, rather than having to show why our respective ideas are better, we can simply leap to exposing the other side as being dishonest.

    And now I am going to go, because I am worried everyone is reading this in the voice Sam Elliot used in ‘The Big Lebowski’, Dude.

  270. Outofbed 270
    21 January 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Billy
    well said

  271. Robinsod 271
    21 January 2008 at 9:34 pm

    The dude abides, Billy.

  272. Daveo 272
    21 January 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Just had a listen to that Larry Williams piece and what a joke. He sounded like he was reading someone else’s work. There was none of the usual passion and anger, and the attempts to link it to the ‘draconian’ EFA (real professional Laz’) were desperate. He was done in twenty seconds and honestly, Sprout’s on the money when he says Lazza just sounded bored.

    All in all a crap piece of journalism during dead time that basically amounted to “I read this thing on Kiwiblog and it sounds kind of bad for labour – haven’t bothered to do any more research. Next story.”

  273. Daveo 273
    21 January 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Billy- props. I enjoy having reasonable rightwingers on this site rather than the usual dross that comes over from Kiwiblog. It makes it a lot more interesting.

  274. Kimble 274
    22 January 2008 at 1:10 am

    This has been going on for a day or more now, yet there is STILL nothing on the front page about it. Why is that?

    You would think a small reference would be warranted surely? Just a single post to set the record straight?

    I can think of three plausible reasons why this hasnt happened, and they are by no means mutually exclusive.

    1. Paul M has you dead to rights, and there is little wriggle room.

    2. You haven’t been able to come up with a consistent story thus far.

    3. If you put it on the front page, any one that happens to stumble upon the site will be blissfully unaware of your humiliation and by your Labou-funded, anti-National propaganda.

  275. westmere 275
    22 January 2008 at 8:49 am

    Possibly because there’s something else on today?

    I’m sure the six and a half people in New Zealand consumed with this issue will have plenty of time to froth about it for the rest of the year. But please forgive the rest of us if we don’t share your obsession at this moment. Sorry.

  276. vrag naroda 276
    22 January 2008 at 9:02 am

    Anybody seen Peter ?

  277. schrodigerscat 277
    22 January 2008 at 9:03 am

    Yes lets get on with it. More analysis less froth.

  278. Casual Watcher 278
    23 January 2008 at 10:17 am

    It’s amazing how much this post resembles this press release from the epmu http://www.ourmedia.org.nz/2007_04_12_TVNZ_guts

    So which was it? Was this press release written on epmu time or was this post written on epmu time?

Links to post