The ten most commented on posts of 2016

Written By: - Date published: 8:07 am, December 30th, 2016 - 7 comments
Categories: The Standard, The Standard line - Tags:

It is that time of year again where a certain level of introspection is compulsory and people try and work out what they did well and what they did not so well this year.  Here at the Standard for the past three years the most commented on and most popular posts have been listed.  Often the list is quite different but these give an insight into what were the most burning issues of the year.

And here is the list.

Tenth was Anthony Robins post concerning Andrew Little declaring that Labour would oppose the TPPA.  Matthew Hooton hopped into the debate early and asked if Labour would withdraw from the treaty if elected.  Subsequent events and the election of Donald Trump as POTUS has made this debate academic.  But 351 comments addressed the implications.

Ninth was a post by Anthony Robins on the July Roy Morgan poll results.  Like most of them the result had bounced around from previous results.  This did not stop 359 comments addressing possible causes and not the unreliability of the poll results.

The eighth most commented post was another by Anthony Robins on how Labour was considering the implementation of a Universal Basic Income.  Posts on this issue always seem to be popular with readers and this post with 360 comments was no exception.

Seventh was a provocative post by Advantage defending the rights of the Muslim religion and other religions to exist in New Zealand in response to an equally provocative post by Te Reo Putake suggesting that religion should be ended.  A total of 365 comments addressed Advantage’s post.  Both posts showed that debate is alive and well on the Standard.

Sixth was a post by mickysavage questioning what had got into the collective mind of America after the election of Donald Trump as POTUS.  Like many other posts on this subject the debate was vigorous between those who thought that Trump was a narcissistic fool and a danger to the world and those who thought that Hillary Clinton was no better and potentially worse.  The 376 comments were just a drop in the bucket of the total number of comments on the subject posted in the Standard this year.

Fifth was another post about a Roy Morgan poll, this one by Colonial Viper.  These posts fell into something of a pattern.  Those that were bad for the left were an opportunity for the right to taunt and attack, those that were good for the left were a chance for the right to criticise the accuracy of the poll and vice versa. 391 comments provided a classic example of this sort of debate.

Fourth was the Te Reo Putake post advocating for the end of religion and caused 461 comments to be made.  This is the post that caused the response by Advantage mentioned above.  Freedom of debate is clearly alive and well at the Standard as shown by the 461 comments made.

Third was the post noting the announcement by John Key that he was standing down, posted about 15 minutes after the announcement was made.  The accompanying graphic was shared multiple times.  468 comments were appropriate given the significance of the announcement.

Second was the election day discussion point concerning the US elections.  And what a day that was … 500 comments is clear evidence of this.  And still there is no consensus on the left on what Trump’s election will mean.  Nor is there any sign that there will be.

And the winner is …

Te Reo Putake’s post at the beginning of the year confirming that Labour would oppose the TPPA.  715 comments made this the most commented on post ever in the Standard’s history.

And tomorrow will be the list of the most popular posts of this year and interestingly only one of these posts appears on that list.

7 comments on “The ten most commented on posts of 2016”

  1. Anne 1

    How do you ascertain which were the most popular posts as opposed to those who attracted the most comments?

  2. gsays 2

    A bittersweet irony: 2 of those authors (CV & trp) end the year serving bans.

    Thanks again to the authors and commenters who keep challenging beliefs and opinions.
    Here’s to an interesting 2017.

  3. Jenny 3

    In hindsight….

    The TPPA was the biggest issue debated on The Standard.

    In hindsight…..

    The TPPA was also the biggest issue of the US presidential election.

    On one side Trump was vehemently opposed, whereas Clinton was, sorta/maybe/reluctantly, sometimes for the TPPA sometimes opposed.

    While the Centre Right was obviously for the TPPA, The debate on The Standard was representative of where the Left and the Centre Left in NZ and overseas became paralysed with endless wrestling over the TPPA, ending in piecemeal opposition.
    The Far Right had no such problem, and Trump and the Right in the US saw a gap in the market that they were able to massively capitalise on.

    Though not the same, (for obvious reasons), there is an echo of an earlier triumph of the Right…

    In the 1930s while the German Left were pussy footing around the question of the power the financial elite. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party were able to capitalise on the German people’s righteous anger with the banks, and turn it against what they termed, “Untermensch” ….often referred to as “the masses from the East”, that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs. Much as Trump has done with Muslims and masses from the South, Mexicans and other Latin Americans.

    Below is what I think is a representative sampling of the TPPA debate.

    9 January 2016 at 10:26 am
    Little’s voice is a move in the right direction but NOT the firm NO and CLEAR voice against the TPPA that is required.
    The TPPA agreement is an outdated, unsustainable assault on the environment, equality, wages, workers, locals and social welfare. It supports the global mega rich while lowering minimum standards for all fought for over the last 100 years. There is zero morality in these agreements.
    Already we have companies wanted to take legal action against the council in Wellington for example for having a ‘living wage’. Imagine what is going to happen when TPPA comes around with money to burn, buy up everything, asset strip it and then leave the husks behind. That is capitalism and neoliberalism championed under these agreements! Profit is more important than people.
    Why Labour is only concerned about property clauses in it, I do not know. The whole deal is a disaster!
    Look at what is happening to most Kiwis under the current free trade environment with more unemployment, higher costs of living and decreasing environmental standards.
    What we have got in this country that is going to become increasingly more valuable and sought after, such as clean air, water, healthy food and a safe environment without corruption (and is being decimated under National and these trade agreements that want to go back to a 19th century industrial system of destruction).
    It is like the golden goose, the government can’t wait to kill the goose and get those short term gains ASAP!
    But Labour are not really clear where they stand on TPPA. “Sort of, maybe, property, ” is not the clear opposition they should be pursuing.

    Colonial Viper
    10 January 2016 at 10:16 pm
    Is a Little led Labour Government going to withdraw NZ from the TPPA?
    Or keep us in the TPPA?
    I can’t actually tell.

    10 January 2016 at 10:31 pm
    I think that is as its intended….an ambiguous position that can be interpreted as you wish

    Colonial Viper
    10 January 2016 at 10:37 pm
    its a PR position which has Grant Robertson’s fingerprints all over it.

    10 January 2016 at 10:52 pm
    well whoever devised it I suspect it will achieve nothing except perhaps the opposite of what they hoped

    te reo putake
    11 January 2016 at 5:16 pm
    CV, I included the radio interview in the post. Have a listen and I think all your confusion will disappear. But in short, it’s neither. Little has said the next Government will reject at least some of negative aspects of the TPPA. How that plays out will depend on the reaction of the others who signed up for it. With a bit of luck, they’ll cop it sweet. If not, then I think we are going to have an interesting debate in NZ about what is more important, the rights of the foreign rich or the self determination of us Kiwis.

  4. Jenny 4

    Another example of where the Right outflanked the Left by taking up a Left program. (disengenously of course), Was the election of the Bolger government of 1991, where National campaigned on platform of stopping state asset sales and privatisation, reversing user pays in health, scrapping tertiary fees, and the Super Surtax, etc ect.

    All policies championed and inplemented by the Lange/Douglas Labour Government.

    On gaining office rather than honouring these pledges to the electorate, and reversing the neo-liberal reforms of the ’80s, the National government of Jim Bolger, Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley, doubled down on them.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts