Two senior journos, one side of the story

Written By: - Date published: 9:42 am, May 15th, 2010 - 23 comments
Categories: Media, newspapers - Tags: ,

You may remember my remonstration of Audrey Young when she filed a reasonably major political story without even bothering to get comment from anyone but the government.

It seems that rather than being some kind of aberration the dial for the Herald’s political reportage is now set firmly to fail with not one but two senior journos working on a story about the upcoming budget that appears to try to balance quotes from Bill English with a quote from John Key.

That’s right the story “Budget: what’s in it for you” has been written by two highly paid senior journalists but quotes just one side of a major matter.

And of course it picks one pay level, $50k, to demonstrate a tax windfall of $20 a week.

Once again the lack of response/reaction quotes means nobody even gets the chance to tell the Herald’s (shrinking – I wonder why?) readership about the massive weekly windfall cutting 5% off the top rate will give the small wealthy elite or the kick in the teeth the huge number of people on and below the median income will get as GST rises and services reduce.

But aside for the political bias this is poor journalism. If these two ratbags were journalism students I’d be calling them in for a wee talk about whether they should be looking at other career paths.

23 comments on “Two senior journos, one side of the story ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    15 May 2010 at 9:52 am

    A joint story ? Are they happy with that. Maybe they should put Bill Englishs name on the byline as well.

  2. aj 2
    15 May 2010 at 10:35 am

    I wait with interest to see how much better off a working family on the average wage will be.

    • Herodotus 2.1
      15 May 2010 at 10:55 am

      According to the grand Herald no worse off than in April. But in Dec as inflation takes over a wee bit worse off. Yet this was the same a few years ago under Labour. I have no stats only a feel, yet avg families are progressively feeling the pinch and have done for 30+ years. It is just wee backward steps so you and I do not notice, sure there was a wee jump with WFF but that was only bring us back to a position of 3-7 years previously. Get use to t those in the middle of the bell curve 68% get if we are lucky get fed some short term scraps, but it is not a condusive diet to live off!!

  3. Marty G 3
    15 May 2010 at 10:49 am

    They totally ignore everyone below the ‘average’ and full time mean income is hardly the typical income of a Kiwi – I would use median income which is $28,000.

    Typical.

    My numbers suggest that, in fact, nearly everyone will be slightly better off in terms of tax paid but that money didn’t come out of thin air – the poor will lose out more in higher rents (and landlords will lose out too, but I’m not so worrid about them, sorry Redlogix 🙂 ).

    http://thestandard.org.nz/i-got-it-wrong-tax-cuts-for-rich-even-bigger/

  4. Marty G 4
    15 May 2010 at 11:02 am

    It’s kind of a lightweight story to be by the two of them. I picture the process:

    Young: OK, here are the talking points from the PM’s office. Do we need to add anything?

    Armstrong: Nah it looks good

    Young: Shouldn’t we add something about what happens to most Kiwis? I hear not everyone earns $50,000 or more?

    Armstrong: Really? Are you sure?

    Young: Yeah, I’m sure I read that somewhere

    Armstrong: ah fuck ’em , they probably can’t read anyway.

  5. Lazy Susan 5
    15 May 2010 at 11:08 am

    Agree that journalism was certainly missing in action here.

    A quick glance at the Herald’s table though would amply demonstrate to most readers that there’s bugger all in it for them. The “estimated net gains” per week don’t even get into double digits unless you’re earning more than 80k.

    Shame the Herald decided the cut-off point was 100k as some pretty healthy gains would have been seen above that figure. I wonder why they chose that threshold!

    So English is spending $2.3 billion to give his rich mates a rise. Notice the excuse is now to “encourage savings and speculation and discourage consumption”. Clearly the ‘trickle down theory’ has now been so discredited that even the NActs can’t bring themseleves to spouting it.

    If NAct were serious about encouraging saving of course they wouldn’t have neutured KiwiSaver and suspended contributions to the Superannuation Fund.

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    15 May 2010 at 12:02 pm

    The simpering Armstrong is such a tory toady it is embarrassing to observe with Young little better nowadays, the main thing isdon’t encourage them by buying their sausage wrapper, solidarity for the sacked journos and printers of years previous is reason enough to boycott the NZ Herald.

  7. Blue 7
    15 May 2010 at 12:27 pm

    The print version of the Herald has a table showing the effect on incomes from 20,000 up to 100,000.

    That’s not online, though.

  8. tc 8
    15 May 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Between the Herald and TVNZ the gov’t have a lovely PR machine going on……their radio mates help also.

  9. zonk 9
    15 May 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Same thing happened on Key’s trip to Afghanistan.

    No alternative points of view, no research into the background of what we were actually achieving or otherwise, and Johnny in a flakjacket talking about the “Taleban and stuff”.

  10. seth 10
    15 May 2010 at 4:26 pm

    Why do you lefties always blather on about “giving their rich mates a rise”????

    I earn 120k a year salary gross. After the budget I will still have the same gross salary. How is this getting me a payrise?

    It is good because it encourages me to pay down my debt instead of the money going out to encourage people who can’t afford it to have children. Additionally, if the ring-fencing and/or depreciation changes come in it means I don’t have to claim tax rebates anymore because my actual salary will be going towards my investment property.

    Oh, and newsflash…..I work bloody hard for the 120k…..and deserve every cent of it, especially seeing as it comes from a foreign company. If you are going to get upset about low income people not getting a tax advantage, maybe you should also tell them to work their asses off for a decent job like I’ve spent the last 15 years doing……..

    ps: Thanks to the fiscal restraint showed by Key and his boys, it looks like we are going to be back in surpluses years ahead of when it was predicted………not much you can whinge about on that one is there?

    • Marty G 10.1
      15 May 2010 at 4:34 pm

      “Why do you lefties always blather on about “giving their rich mates a rise’????

      I earn 120k a year salary gross. After the budget I will still have the same gross salary. How is this getting me a payrise?”

      It’s giving you an increase in net income, dumb dumb.

      “Oh, and newsflash ..I work bloody hard for the 120k ..and deserve every cent of it”

      And I suppose people cleaning up shit out of your office toilets for minimum wage aren’t working hard. Living the high life aren’t they? Yeah, they’re just too lazy eh? It’s a fact that our economy runs on people like you and me getting the lion’s share while most of the work is done by people earning next to nothing. It’s a fact that economic and social deprivation dooms hundreds of thousands to poverty. It’s called capitalism because the wealth goes to the owners of capital and their managerial class.

      “Thanks to the fiscal restraint showed by Key and his boys, it looks like we are going to be back in surpluses years ahead of when it was predicted not much you can whinge about on that one is there?”

      For a marginal increase in borrowing they could have gotten thousands more people back into work. In fact, having a person on the benefit costs the govt about $18K a year on average. Better for the economy and the society to spend that money getting them into work.

      • Herodotus 10.1.1
        16 May 2010 at 1:32 pm

        “After the budget I will still have the same gross salary. How is this getting me a payrise?’

        It’s giving you an increase in net income, dumb dumb.”
        But Marty how about the destruction in value caused by inflation. So all of us from 99 -07 received a pay cut under the management of Labour as with tax creep & inflation we received in real terms a reducted amount of net income?
        Also when those who received some assistance from the govt that was not adjusted by any index progressively saw the “generorsity” reduced, as time does that with money also got a pay cut.
        “…It’s called capitalism because the wealth goes to the owners of capital and their managerial class.” NO it is not the fault for me of capitalism. The cause is governments unable to put forward a philosophy and follow up action of how the gains are to be spread/divided by those within its society. It is selective take a bit there to give over there BECAUSE we can benefit by gaining/retaining power. Otherwise how did ownership of NZ assets diminish so dramatically under the 4th & 5th Lab govts to so few recipients?

    • Marty G 10.2
      15 May 2010 at 4:37 pm

      Oh and you’ll be getting more than $50 a week in tax cuts. Considering you are already working in NZ and getting paid over 4 times the median income, how will another $50 a week improve your life more than it could have helped a family of working class people who will be facing higher rents, higher GST and a tiny tax cut?

      • Tigger 10.2.1
        15 May 2010 at 4:42 pm

        seth – I earn way more than you so clearly you’re not working hard enough. I’m telling the PM on you…

  11. graham 11
    15 May 2010 at 6:31 pm

    the figure of 28k as medium income is a bullshit number
    it includes my daughter who earns $20 a week in parttime employment,my sister in law who does $250 a week in the local supermarket etc
    neither of these 2 is the primary earner in there household
    that is why we dont use the medium income figure in this country for it dosent take into account ,children part time work by a Wife/husband
    As someone who consisders him self smart the only reason why marty would use this figure is to make people seem poorer than what they are
    TYPICAL LEFT APPROACH = OVER EGGING THE PUDDING

    • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1
      15 May 2010 at 6:54 pm

      Nice to know they are non people, using your criteria. Just as well they dont have the vote either ……

    • Marty G 11.2
      15 May 2010 at 6:55 pm

      So, if you’re lucky enough to live in a household where you aren’t the primary earner then you don’t count?

      And what about the families where the primary income earner is minimum wage, or not employed? What about pensioners?

  12. Marty G 12
    15 May 2010 at 7:01 pm

    The median household income is $64,000 a year. http://wdmzpub01.stats.govt.nz/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportName=Incomes/Household%20income%20by%20source%20of%20household%20income%20and%20household%20type

    A touch over twice that $28,000 personal median.

    But I’m sure you have a way to make the poor disappear from your consciousness again.

  13. graham 13
    16 May 2010 at 5:15 am

    The total household income figure is the one that counts.If you had a familly you would understand that

    • Maynard J 13.1
      16 May 2010 at 8:59 pm

      You moron, what ‘counts’ is the effect of changes on incomes individually, not at a household level.

      If you had teh logics you would understand that.

  14. aj 14
    16 May 2010 at 10:18 am

    What about the election promise, tax cuts ‘north of $50’ for the average wage earner, and the committment to raise wages. Both nothing but a mirage.
    Oh, add the cycleway to that too.

    captcha: ‘examining’