Patrick Gower, ‘Voters view Cunliffe as negative leader’, report on 3 News last night.
What a shocking piece of manipulative reporting about a dodgy poll, using a dodgy analysis. It’s called a “3 News Special Poll”, and it seems to have focused on asking questions to suit their preconceived notions about one Labour leadership contender.
The poll looks more like an indicator of how the MSM, especially Gower, has covered Labour leadership issues in the past, and the way it’s reported indicates Gower is, yet again, following the ABC agenda.
He gives no details of the sample size or method of gathering this data. And the most significant result, that should have been the headline, is downgraded to insignificance: most people answered “Don’t know” to the questions Gower leads on. Gower’s poll results:
He [Cunliffe] won’t be happy with a poll showing he is perceived as having more style than substance.
David Cunliffe – 25.8 percent
Grant Robertson – 13.9 percent
Shane Jones – 13 percent
Don’t know – 47.3 percentAnd the pollsters believe he talks down to people.
David Cunliffe – 30.7 percent
Shane Jones – 13.0 percent
Grant Robertson – 7.9 percent
Don’t know – 48.4 percentHe also failed the honesty test, while Shane Jones – perhaps unsurprisingly – was rated most honest.
Shane Jones – 17.3 percent
Grant Robertson – 16.3 percent
David Cunliffe – 8.6 percent
Don’t know – 57.8 percentIt’s those negative traits the Labour MPs who dislike Mr Cunliffe point to. But the problem for his detractors is he comes out on top in leadership traits like understanding the economy by a long way.
David Cunliffe – 22.4 percent
Grant Robertson – 12.4 percent
Shane Jones – 12.1 percent
Don’t know – 53.1 percentAnd he is also seen as good in a crisis – another good trait.
David Cunliffe – 21.2 percent
Shane Jones – 16.1 percent
Grant Robertson – 15.1 percent
Don’t know – 47.6 percent
Given that Gower has consistently smeared Cunliffe with ABC lines, since Gower manufactured a Cunliffe (non) coup in his reporting of last year’s Labour Conference (as argued by Trotter), Gower seems to have had it in for Cunliffe. It was seen in his attempt to undermine Cunliffe’s leadership launch by focusing on irrelevant things like Cunliffe’s painting on the electoral office wall.
The bias in favour of the ABCs is seen with these comments in Gower’s report:
It’s those negative traits the Labour MPs who dislike Mr Cunliffe point to.
It seems to only be the ABC views of Cunliffe that Gower is interested in. Also from Gower’s report last night, his conclusion:
The “anyone but Cunliffe” club is now in overdrive. There are at least 15 MPs out of 34 who truly can’t stand him. Come the decision on Sunday, that may make life really difficult for them.
So this is the main slant of Gower’s piece. Ignoring or downgrading all the support Cunliffe gets, and failing to really analyse the significance of the “Don’t knows”.
It’s likely most people have yet to make up their own minds about the leadership candidates, perhaps because they have not seen enough of their political performance to make their own assessment.
How does 3 News allow such shockingly biased pieces of reporting to go out on the main 6pm bulletin? While also ignoring such things as the well explained turn around from ex-Labour president, Mike Williams, previously a supporter of Team Shearer, now saying he voted Cunliffe. Wouldn’t it have added more “balance” to Gower’s report to have included such a different view?
David has much to learn, just like Helen Clark and John Key when they assumed the leadership of their parties, but he has demonstrated the ability to do so.
And special Jonolist mention goes to bovver boys Espiner and Garner for apparently haranguing Turei into backtracking on her statement that she would like house prices in NZ to fall.
Or maybe the award should go to 3 News coverage of it and the way it manufactures a Turei backdown? I don’t watch The Vote (which turns political coverage into a distortionary circus), but did watch last night’s 3 News coverage of the Turei statements on it.
Turei makes a perfectly reasonable statement that house prices need to fall to enable more affordability for those on low incomes. Garnerand Espiner do a shock-horror bodily response, then keep haranguing Turei for advocating the lowering of the value of their properties for many home owners.
Well many of those home owners have been benefiting from the escalation of housing prices, while other’s are sleeping in garages, on floors, in cars and on the streets.
For New Zealand to become a fairer and more inclusive society; one that cares for all Kiwis, we need better mainstream journalism, not low quality, manipulative and misleading sensationalist Jonolism.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress