Take action against the Herald’s lies

89 comments on “Take action against the Herald’s lies ”

• Comments are now closed

1. riffer 1

   25 June 2014 at 8:53 pm

   Done.

   Dear Sir,

   on Sunday June 22, 2014 you published an article on your website:
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089

   with a subtitle stating “List includes $100,000 for bottle of wine signed by Helen Clark”

   This article is a clear violation of the Journalism Code of Ethics 41(a), which states:

   “They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.”

   I wish to register a complaint. The Herald has a vital role to play in New Zealand’s elections and this behaviour is bordering on corruption.

   Please can you provide an explanation that both the Press Council and I would deem acceptable.
   • Harry Holland 1.1

     25 June 2014 at 10:15 pm

     “I wish to register a complaint.” …cut to parrot sketch.
     • greywarbler 1.1.1

       26 June 2014 at 9:53 am

       Norwegian blue – very funny.
       This potato is dead. No it isn’t. Yes it’s nailed to its computer. Well okay The Hairy doesn’t let down its customers. We can offer a slug. Does it talk? Yes, but only when it’s dark and over a beverage. I’ll take it says Mr Creosote.
2. quartz 2

   25 June 2014 at 9:01 pm

   I’m putting mine together. Bomber has a good list of clear lies: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/25/7-falsehoods-in-donghua-liu-manufactured-smear/
3. JK 3

   25 June 2014 at 9:10 pm

   Yep – also done !

   Dear Mr Murphy

   Your newspaper – purportedly the leading paper in New Zealand – is reaching new lows with its reporting of Labour’s alleged gifts of donations of money from Mr Liu.

   I would like an explanation as to how your reporter can indicate that Labour still needs to justify the amount of $100,000 Mr Liu says he gave in donations when it is very clear from the article in today’s Herald that this amount includes payment for a Chinese staff dinner on the river Yangtze, and a $2000 donation to a rowing club.

   Your reporter’s other comment that David Cunliffe wrote a letter for Liu’s residency application also implies that this letter – a pro forma letter written 11 years ago seeking a time frame for a decision on the residency applicaton – is in fact a letter of support for that residency application. This is incorrect – as you very well know.

   I would like an explanation as to why you – editor of a so-called prestigious daily newspaper – should allow such implications to be made, when you know they are incorrect. If you refute this, I can – of course – quote from other NZ Herald articles which also indicate these implications, and which have distorted the general public’s knowledge of the integrity of Labour Party Leader, David Cunliffe.

   NB I also attached to this letter, copy of the statements made by Jared whatsit in his story, with date etc
4. Anne 4

   25 June 2014 at 9:12 pm

   Don’t forget this load of vicious crap by John Armstrong. Worthy of a specific complaint re-J.A.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong/news/article.cfm?a_id=3&objectid=11278362

   I note he appears to have gone to ground. Not a peep out of him since Sat. He usually has 2 to 3 shorter pieces published during the week days.
   • ianmac 4.1

     25 June 2014 at 9:49 pm

     He does have another strange piece up today :
     “John Armstrong: Cunliffe and Key shadow boxing on dodgy election deals.”
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11280994
     • Anne 4.1.1

       25 June 2014 at 10:08 pm

       I googled Armstrong @ NZ Herald and the Sat. article was still at the top of the page.

       They can’t admit when they’ve stuffed up big time can they. They’re like sulking five year olds lashing out again and again cos they got found out telling porkies.
       • Richard Christie 4.1.1.1

         25 June 2014 at 11:13 pm

         Why admit anything, they’re completely happy with the result so far and continue to spin the story all they possibly can.
5. dimebag russell 5

   25 June 2014 at 9:13 pm

   you cant make this sort of stuff up.
   too much fun already.
   how many complaints does tim murphy have to receive before it is front page news?
   I think bomber will probably end up with a fried wig!
6. anker 6

   25 June 2014 at 9:28 pm

   So as a member of the Labour Party, I shouldn’t complain? Just to clarify.

   I have two previous complaints with the Press Council from early March.

   They were finally heard on 16th June and I am waiting for the results which I am told will take two weeks from the date of the hearing.

   Initially when I complained to the Editor, I didn’t hear back. I put my complaint to the Press Council, who got back to me and said unfortunately the Herald had over-looked my email and would like the chance to respond. I gave them another ten days and heard nothing. I then went back to the press council copying in the Herald, who then responded. There response was pathetic. Then I responded and they were given another chance to respond, but missed their deadline. I think they do these delaying tactics, in the hope that people get busy or move on and so just give up.

   I am sincerely not meaning to discouraged anyone from complaining and its good to see what people have written already. I’ll let people know the results when I hear them.

   [lprent: As a member of the NZLP you should complain. In theory as an aggrieved party your complaint should carry more weight than just a member of the public. ]
   • Anne 6.1

     25 June 2014 at 10:15 pm

     Yes, I had a similar experience with TV1 about 3 years ago. They upped their game though when I took the complaint to the BSA and I had the satisfying experience of observing that the TV1 celebrity concerned upped his game considerably following my complaint.
   • weka 6.2

     25 June 2014 at 10:24 pm

     Thanks anker and Anne. Anker, I think what you did was very worthwhile, despite the poor response and timeframes. The more they are held accountable the more likely it is that things will improve. I agree that they probably just hope people go away, so perserverance will make them notice. I wonder if you can complain to the Press Council about such tactics.
7. ianmac 7

   25 June 2014 at 9:51 pm

   Written complaint to the Herald. Prepared one for the Press Council.
8. Tautoko Viper 8

   25 June 2014 at 10:00 pm

   Dear Mr Murphy,
   The University of California begins its explanation of the term “Fourth Estate” with the following paragraph.

   Media as the “Fourth Estate”
   Access to information is essential to the health of democracy for at least two reasons. First, it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a “checking function” by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.
   http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/boaz/pol326/feb12.htm

   The Herald has not served NZ citizens well in the Donghua Liu fiasco. Instead of providing a checking function to prevent misinformation, the Herald has (either wittingly or unwittingly) allowed itself to be used as a conduit for misinformation.
   Our citizens deserve better particularly this close to an election. I would hope that you would make every effort to ensure that the Herald upholds the integrity of the Fourth Estate in the next 3 months. We need a fair election based on voter choice of policies.
   • ianmac 8.1

     26 June 2014 at 9:38 am

     Excellent Tautoko!
9. the pigman 9

   25 June 2014 at 10:06 pm

   I think this is a great initiative, Zet.

   It would be helpful if one of the Standard’s more talented researchers could review the material produced by the NZ Herald/Herald on Sunday since 18 June 2014 and identify the articles where those papers spit fell short of high standards of accuracy/fairness/balance. I think complaints should be as specific/targeted as possible.

   If people were feeling more adventurous/masochistic, a similar exercise could be undertaken with the other major papers (I realise the Herald has been the biggest offender here).

   I don’t find Bomber’s list of “7 falsehoods” (since when did he start doing Buzzfeed-style headlines, anyway?) that helpful or persuasive: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/25/7-falsehoods-in-donghua-liu-manufactured-smear/ – while we’re in the Buzzfeed mood, the subtitle could be: “#4 is not even a falsehood” – however obviously NZH articles that present any of those claims either in headlines/without conducting sufficient inquiries to ascertain their veracity would be good fodder for complaints.

   Volunteers for trawling through the coverage thusfar? I know there are some abject masochists here 😉
   • weka 9.1

     25 June 2014 at 10:27 pm

     It’s a good suggestion pigman, but if it doesn’t happen I think there is still ample in the links that Zet put in the post. Numbers of people putting in complaints will send an important message too, both to the Herald and the Press Council and its members.
   • JK 9.2

     26 June 2014 at 9:38 am

     Go to Frank Macasey’s blogsite – Frankly Speaking – he has a good list up there of all the Herald stories on the Liu saga. Forgotten the title of it but its one of the latest he’s put up.
10. DH 10

    25 June 2014 at 10:11 pm

    What’s the commercial setup re Sunday Herald and weekly Herald? I ask this because Tim Murphy is, I believe, editor only of the Sunday Herald and the whole paper is a party to this anti-Cunliffe activity.

    The weekly editorials are far more egregrious than the Sunday editorials, by & large Murphy has been a bit more balanced in the Labour/National stakes. (not excusing him here, just noting he’s not the worst transgressor)
    • karol 10.1

      25 June 2014 at 10:22 pm

      They’re both owned by APN News – plus many other publications in Aussie and NZ.
      • quartz 10.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 6:10 am

        He’s the Editor in Chief of the whole group of Herald titles.
        • karol 10.1.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 6:38 am

          Thanks. Yes, says so on his twitter profile.

          Explained here

          Announcing this today, acting chief executive of APN NZ Media Matt Crockett said as editor-in-chief Tim Murphy will provide strategic content direction and leadership for the Herald’s daily, weekend, Sunday and online brands

          Pic of him here on the right

          From here
          • DH 10.1.1.1.1

            26 June 2014 at 12:52 pm

            Thanks. Still a bit confusing. In the last link the pic bio says Murphy is editor-in-chief of Herald titles and Curry is editor of the New Zealand Herald. I guess that makes Murphy Curry’s boss but it is a bit vague.

            They do throw these titles around. Was reading about another O’Sullivan (Cathy) moving to Fairfax. “Currently the editor of nzherald.co.nz and head of news at the New Zealand Herald”

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10190536/Fairfax-appoints-Auckland-boss

            (I thought it was a bad dream come to life, fortunately she’s not related or doesn’t appear to be)

            Interesting they call John Roughan a journalist in the puff piece about Key. He was a journalist, many years ago, but I’m pretty sure he isn’t one now. It’s not a title for life.

            Roughan seems a man of many roles. Herald also describe him as;

            “John Roughan is an editorial writer and columnist for the New Zealand Herald ”

            The Press Council describe him as;

            “John Roughan New Zealand Herald Assistant Editor, Auckland”

            And now he’s a journalist as well….. busy man.
11. Harry Holland 11

    25 June 2014 at 10:12 pm

    And small things count.
    Don’t ever buy the Herald.
    Remind people that’s its days of serious journalism are over.
    Circulation is falling.
    Desperation is setting in.
    No respect.
    • Richard Christie 11.1

      25 June 2014 at 11:24 pm

      Remind people that’s its days of serious journalism are over.

      Yeah, its integrity certainly matches its new format.
      I stopped the family daily subscription 3 years ago.
      Now I even walk right past it in the supermarket.
12. Jrobin 12

    25 June 2014 at 11:23 pm

    Can you clarify Zetetic what you meant by your last paragraph. Did you mean that members of the Labour Party as immediate parties would be more able, or less able, or not permitted, to make a complaint to the EPMU? Ambiguous for those wanting to make a complaint.
    • Richard Christie 12.1

      25 June 2014 at 11:29 pm

      If you are LP member you will be regarded as a party to the matter complained about, therefore your complaint will/may ruled inadmissible/unactionable as they don’t need to consider it. I’m unsure if they are able to exercise discretion on this.

      edit oops, apologies, I see my name isn’t Zetetic.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        25 June 2014 at 11:41 pm

        How are they going to know that you are a Labour Party member? And, it doesn’t hurt for them to know that Labour Party members are active and give a damn.
      • Lanthanide 12.1.2

        26 June 2014 at 10:19 am

        No, it’s the exact opposite: if you are a party member, your complaint will have more weight behind it.
13. Jrobin 13

    25 June 2014 at 11:54 pm

    Thanks Richard. I can’t help but think though that even though the editorial policy of the Herald at the moment has turned it ino propaganda, I would still miss it if it goes under. Wouldn’t that be kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How about applying pressure to journalists to grow some ethics. There are legal channels for complaint, like this suggestion by Zetetic, perhaps every one who cares about an active Fourth Estate needs to start resisting this more regularly. Without journalists who are regulated by Press Council, we will only have bloggers. As we all know some blogs are great but have limitations. Some are just gutter snipes. I still like reading
    a number of the regulars in the Herald. Even the ones who have a totally different view to mine, that’s life, freedom of speech is fine with me. Maybe the downward spiral has originated from the most abusive bloggers and infected the old school papers. They need a good dose of legal challenge to remind them of their role in safeguarding privacy and honest reporting.
    • Huginn 13.1

      26 June 2014 at 2:20 am

      Jrobin

      Agree with you you.
      Thanks for reminding me.
    • Huginn 13.2

      26 June 2014 at 2:20 am

      Jrobin

      Agree with you you.
      Thanks for reminding me.
    • Harry Holland 13.3

      26 June 2014 at 6:49 am

      Jrobin, your faith in the tory scumbag press’ ability to reform itself with a bit of legal pressure, against the tide of falling circulation, journalist salaries, staff numbers, time for and commitment to research, and intellectual capability (these days most journalist undergrads are attracted by the chance to be on TV I hear – will check my source on that point when home broadband comes back up) is optimistic at best. The triumph of hope over experience.
14. Harry Holland 14

    25 June 2014 at 11:55 pm

    Waiting for the inevitable announcement..

    “NZ Herald Appoints Cameron Slater as Editor”
    • McFlock 14.1

      26 June 2014 at 12:15 am

      actually, that would be awesome – how long was the slug editor before Truth went into the ground (the paper, not the relationship it had to reality)?
    • Populuxe1 14.2

      26 June 2014 at 3:53 am

      Why not? Green stalwart Lucy Lawless has already had a go.
      • Lanthanide 14.2.1

        26 June 2014 at 10:20 am

        That was a guest spot for 1 day only.
        • Populuxe1 14.2.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 11:46 am

          Still happened though. If their market were all right wing conservatives they would be shedding subscriptions in droves.
          • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.1.1

            26 June 2014 at 11:58 am

            The job of the commercial media appears to be to influence political sentiment and where possible to entrench it. And in NZ it has to be a little more subtle than the Fox News approach.
            • weka 14.2.1.1.1.1

              26 June 2014 at 2:16 pm

              Lucy Lawless would give the Herald some cred it wouldn’t have otherwise. Got to keep those middle class liberals hooked in.
    • dv 14.3

      26 June 2014 at 9:45 am

      What has happened to his case in court?
      Reporting has disappeared.
15. Jrobin 15

    26 June 2014 at 12:12 am

    Welcome to my nightmare……..
16. güvenlik sistemleri 16

    26 June 2014 at 3:20 am

    And, it doesn’t hurt for them to know that Labour Party members are active and give a damn.
    • weka 16.1

      26 June 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Sometimes spam is just downright weird.
      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 2:21 pm

        It’s an exact spambot copy of my comment here

        http://thestandard.org.nz/take-action-against-the-herald/#comment-838895
        • weka 16.1.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 2:31 pm

          ha, ha, the one above is a direct cut and paste from one of my comments. We must be special.

          Anyway, the weird bit is, what is the point of that spam?
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1

            26 June 2014 at 3:05 pm

            Click on its nice friendly spambot html link to find out [no don’t]
            • weka 16.1.1.1.1.1

              26 June 2014 at 3:11 pm

              Oh I already did that. One link is broken, and the other goes to what looks like a domain name ad – hard to tell, as it’s not in English. That’s what I meant about weird. What’s the point of that? Or is there something else going on that I can’t see?
              • Colonial Viper …

                26 June 2014 at 3:25 pm

                Maybe that lprent’s safeguards have stripped out the detail from those links
                • blue leopard …

                  26 June 2014 at 8:00 pm

                  In case you haven’t seen lprent’s explanation of this spambot:

                  http://thestandard.org.nz/john-roughan-nz-heralds-white-elephant/#comment-839560
17. philj 17

    26 June 2014 at 7:30 am

    xox
    Doesn’t JK have a list of Labour members somewhere?
18. hoom 18

    26 June 2014 at 9:02 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281836

    a biography of National’s leader published today.
    …the book’s author – senior Herald and former parliamentary journalist John Roughan

    Seriously WTF???
    How can you have a standing senior journalist writing a biography on the PM & releasing it just before the Election???

    Can we complain to the Electoral Commission for the absence of an ‘Authorised By’ notice?
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      26 June 2014 at 9:18 am

      Yeah the Tories are really good at this stuff, specifically getting soft media.

      Having a book written about yourself after a miserable 1.5 terms as PM is so naff however.

      Labour should spin “most PM’s usually write these books after retirement when they have finally accomplished something useful for the people, but I guess John is already planning his long holiday in Hawaii!”
      • James Stephenson 18.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 12:56 pm

        Do you think that spin line is a good strategy, considering that Brian Edwards’ Hagiography of Helen Clark was published in 2001 a “miserable” 1.5 years into her tenure?
    • Wonderpup 18.2

      26 June 2014 at 9:24 am

      I don’t think this is a problem. This is a very risky move for the author, as the work will be deeply scrutinised, and anything out of place turns it into a huge liability for them and their subject.

      From the brief media I’ve heard about the book, the Queef of Queen St shares the same profile as the Wolf of Wall St, their egregious lack of a consistent set of values other than those of the financial bottom line seems entirely reasonable to them. They simply don’t see how it makes them appear to those who are more principled and empathic.

      Oh, and my use of queef is merely for alliterative purposes, and my apologies for any queefs who may be offended by comparison to John Key.
      • ghostwhowalksnz 18.2.1

        26 June 2014 at 10:08 am

        A Queef is the term for a ‘discharge of air from the vagina after intercourse’ according to Urban dictionary.

        see also South park season 13 ‘Eat, Pray, Queef’ ( its on Utube)
        • Hayden 18.2.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 1:25 pm

          During intercourse as well, surely? This is an important issue.
19. Darwinist 19

    26 June 2014 at 9:07 am

    Does it matter if it was $5000, $10 000, $86 250, or $100 000? The principle, which you are all so elegantly avoiding, is that Labour was taking money from Liu while criticising National FOR TAKING MONEY FROM LIU. The difference is that National has declared at least some of it. Labour has not. This makes me want to vote for neither.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1

      26 June 2014 at 9:46 am

      And your comment is either evidence of ignorance or mendacity. Maurice Williamson was criticised for interfering in a police investigation. The National Party is in the shit for selling access to Ministers.

      Not for accepting donations: for offering services (product endorsements – cf. Oravida, access to Ministers – cf. Cabinet Club, New Zealand legislation – cf. Sky City) in return.

      And here you are demanding that Labour had to obey laws that hadn’t been passed yet. Let’s do unto you as you would to them shall we, and make spreading lies on the internet a criminal offence as of yesterday.

      We need better wingnuts.
      • Darwinist 19.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 10:01 am

        Really? But the outrage appears to be over the fact that there was no $100k bottle of wine. The headlines and opening paragraphs in the links about which we are invited to be outraged are:

        Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
        Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu spent more than $150,000 on the previous Labour government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.

        And:

        Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
        Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.

        Liu, to whom Labour gave permanent residency against official advice, says his earlier signed statement on the wine auction was “capable of two meanings” and after repeated inquiries from the Herald he says he wants to clarify what he spent the $100,000 on.

        Then there is the whole Rick Barker thing, if you want to link this solely to Maurice Williamson’s complete lack of judgement. Did Rick, as immigration minister, not accept and then not declare lavish gifts from Mr Liu?
        • ghostwhowalksnz 19.1.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 11:44 am

          What lavish gifts ? A company staff river cruise , a visit to his cement works ?
          A small amount for local rowing club ?

          Did he get a gift to the party of $60,000 for a round of golf ? I think you better find out what lavish gift really means
        • Tracey 19.1.1.2

          26 June 2014 at 12:27 pm

          reading is a skill. 50 to 60k is for the hire of a boat for a shipfull of guests including barker…

          collins helps husbands company
          williamson pressures police

          that is why the link between donors and parties.

          john key said shu gave 50k to a charity to play golf with him. it wasnt a charity it was the national party.

          I hope that clarifies the difference…
        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.3

          26 June 2014 at 3:01 pm

          “The whole Rick Barker thing:”

          Yeah, where Liu spent $50-60k on his own staff and then falsely claimed he’d donated it to Barker.

          Reading, as Tracey says, is a skill.
    • Tom Gould 19.2

      26 June 2014 at 9:49 am

      Yes, it does matter because the National Herald is a newspaper that is covered by privilege to protect sources and suchlike, the flip side of which is an absolute obligation to tell the truth in reportage.
      Unless you were in a coma for the past week or so, this beat-up pseudo-scandal has inflicted massive damage on Labour and on Cunliffe, with even Collins spitting venom on Radio Live news bulletins and every Tory running their focus-grouped “tricky” line, and every Tory shock jock having a feeding frenzy on whether Cunliffe should resign or be sacked.
      None of this has ever been inflicted on John Key in the seven years he has been leader of the National Party, yet somehow Labour and Cunliffe are fair game because they ‘brought it all on themselves’ and the Herald can’t be blamed because the facts somehow got ‘lost in translation’?
      I believe this media-driven and media-contrived non-scandal is in fact a tipping point for the inherent bias of the MSM towards John Key and National. It should be the beginning of the end of their media honeymoon with Key and his cronies. But it won’t be.
      A complaint to the Press Council, a largely toothless industry-controlled back-slapping club, is a good start, never-the-less. As for your vote, maybe it’s best you do stay home.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 19.3

      26 June 2014 at 10:15 am

      It was not not the ‘taking of money’ that was the problem. National gets way way more money from people and businesses we never hear about.
      It was the money and the favours, so ably demonstrated by Maurice Williamson. There was quite a list of favours returned ending up with Williamsons sacking by his own PM.

      Williamson ended up as Lius poodle
20. appleboy 20

    26 June 2014 at 9:16 am

    Read this shit from the article above!!!!!!

    Roughan writes that at the end of 2012, Mr Key had a “quiet discussion” with his wife, Bronagh, during which they “kicked the tyres” after his four years of running the country and asked themselves, “Are we still committed to all this?”

    Mr Key’s strong belief and confidence in the progress the country was making under his prime ministership prevailed. “Sure I could walk away, but the test of being a successful Prime Minister in my mind is doing the best job I could do in the circumstances we faced,” he told Roughan.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 20.1

      26 June 2014 at 10:18 am

      So I guess he sounded out the US about heading the World Bank ( its usually their choice) and the answer was a NO.

      Back to plan B
    • Linz 20.2

      26 June 2014 at 10:54 am

      Then it goes on:
      …One of his first acts on his return was to sack two lower-ranked Cabinet ministers – as Roughan puts it – “for nothing in particular that they had done”.

      Kate Wilkinson and Phil Heatley would have had no inkling of their fate when they were summoned to the Prime Minister’s office, because Mr Key talks to every minister about the work programme in their portfolios for the 12 months ahead.

      Of Ms Wilkinson’s interview, Mr Key told Roughan: “I said, ‘Look, you’ve done a great job as a minister, but it’s over.’ She said, ‘What have I done wrong?’ I said, ‘Nothing. You have done four years and I want to refresh.’ I said the same thing to Phil.”

      Question: Has Wilkinson got grounds for a wrongful dismissal case?

      When our neighbour’s under stress or has had a row with his wife, he gets on his farm bike and goes out and kills a few goats. Perhaps it’s a National Party thing.
21. Chooky 21

    26 June 2014 at 9:23 am

    what about red stickers …saying the “Herald Lies and Smears” ….or “Boycott the Herald”…or “Herald Against the Truth” …or some such, which people can stick on telegraph poles , notice boards, and miscellaneous Sunday Heralds and Heralds left on cafe tables?
22. ianmac 22

    26 June 2014 at 10:30 am

    Another post at the Herald from Jared Savage re Mr Liu. Still no better!
    “He said the figure included the wine auctions, a $2000 donation to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club, the Yangtze River trip and anonymous donations to MPs.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281832
    • greywarbler 22.1

      26 June 2014 at 12:00 pm

      How come everybody else seemed to have got something and I was left out! Wider and shallower graft is what I am calling for so that it goes further. Fair do’s!
23. Sable 23

    26 June 2014 at 10:47 am

    Another approach is to encourage people to boycott sites that fail to maintain journalistic standards of objectivity and integrity or to push for legal amendments that would require journalists apply higher standards when reporting information. This could be enacted through Facebook and other sites that provide a platform for people to demand change such as Avaaz.org.

    Personally I do not believe the current framework offers much by way of enforcement or penalty.
    • Chooky 23.1

      26 June 2014 at 10:53 am

      personally i will never buy another Sunday Herald …and I will be telling the rest of the family not to either

      …will also encourage my Mother to boycott their most unprofessional smirking polling
      • Sable 23.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 10:57 am

        That’s a start. Personally I do not bother much with any of the MSM sites, its simply a waste of time and mental energy…
        • freedom 23.1.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 11:06 am

          It is a circumstance fraught with difficulties but don’t forget War 101 Sable, know thine enemy.
24. Barnsley Bill 24

    26 June 2014 at 11:26 am

    Keeping this story alive is definitely a winning strategy. More posts like this please.
    • grumpy 24.1

      26 June 2014 at 11:51 am

      The story is cetainly not dead yet. Every day it carries on people are wondering what all the fuss was about from Labour raving about a glass of milk.
      The subject is UNDECLARED gifts and donations, not whether they were $100 or $150k. “Undeclared” is like being “slightly” pregant, they either were declared or they were not.
      • fender 24.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 12:07 pm

        People DO see a conflict of interest in the way Collins has conducted herself.

        Hard to declare donations that don’t exist, but I’m sure the affidavit will materialise any day now..

        It’s amusing and a little sad to see National throw their donor under a bus though, shame Mr Liu didn’t do his homework on the nasty Nats prior to his donations to them.
        • fender 24.1.1.1

          26 June 2014 at 12:15 pm

          Grumpy, this comment by wtl sums up the river cruise nicely: “If I invite you to my wedding that costs $50k, does this mean I donated $50k to you? Yeah fucking right.”
      • Hayden 24.1.2

        26 June 2014 at 12:08 pm

        It wasn’t about a glass of milk, but about using Ministerial travel and status to promote a company of which the relevant minister’s husband is a director, as has now been pointed out to you more than once.

        http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1405/020520141724330001.pdf (PDF)

        Particularly page 83 (85 in the PDF).

        Event

        Visit and tour of Oravida facilities

        Purpose

        To increase the profile of a successful importer and distributor of New Zealand products into China

        Are you Judith Collins?
      • William 24.1.3

        26 June 2014 at 12:56 pm

        The subject at this stage is whether any donations were actually made to Labour.

        So far there’s corroborated evidence of $2000 given to a rowing club, not Labour.
        There’s a claim of $60,000 or so paid for a dinner cruise for his workers, not Labour. One MP ate a meal, less than the $500 required to declare a gift.
        And it seems a bottle of wine was purchased in an auction, where it’s quite likely the beneficiary was a Hawkes Bay Hospice, not Labour.

        All other claims currently depend on the word of someone who has pleaded guilty to domestic violence in NZ, and who was involved in a bribery case in China. Hmm, I know where the credibility lies!
    • ghostwhowalksnz 24.2

      26 June 2014 at 12:03 pm

      Do you think the Herald will run story- Deluge of Press council complaints ?

      Hardly! They have moved back to licking John Keys boots.

      Just because its on The Standard doesnt mean its the public at larges concerns. But for the commentators the ‘facts’ means its no longer labour getting $100,000 which was false.

      National wont be so easy to spin another story like this and get swallowed hook line and sinker.
25. BM 25

    26 June 2014 at 12:24 pm

    LOL, very amusing

    Sue these bastards as well!!!
    • Tracey 25.1

      26 June 2014 at 12:32 pm

      stained your copy of the biography of the liar in chief yet?
      • fender 25.1.1

        26 June 2014 at 12:42 pm

        LOL, yeah BM’s copy of “Portrait of a PM Psychopath” is a one page book already…
26. Paul 26

    27 June 2014 at 6:49 am

    The Herald sufficiently aware of the situation to write an editorial on the matter.
    But no apology.
    What a disgraceful rag.
    A total puppet for foreign corporate interests, so well represented by its owners.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11282539

Links to post

1. The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council. « The Daily Blog: posted on 29 June 2014 at 6:40 am
2. The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council. | Frankly Speaking...: posted on 4 July 2014 at 8:02 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS