Hard News: Never mind the quality ...
319 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Please don’t read any more into my perspective than that. I supposed I could be flattered that people would think I have that close a connection to ctrl govt. Plain truth, I don’t. My life is a heck of a lot simpler and cleaner than all that muck, thank God.
Whether it’s a full on political advocacy campaign or a government relations strategy for an organisation, lobbying or engaging across Parliament – strategic government relations is a speciality we know and are really good at.
Glass Tower moved determinedly into the government relations space after running the successful political advocacy campaign for the New Zealand Principals’ Federation.
Developing and implementing political advocacy campaigns in contentious policy areas, particularly with member organisations or not for profits, is our particular forte.
We also have significant experience in strategic government engagement strategies for CEOs or senior executive members new to organisations or a particular sector.
Whatever we do in the political sphere, we always work with experienced government relations consultants and political junkies to help you understand and speak the language.
Don't make the mistake of thinking we're stupid. We're not, regardless which end of the political spectrum we come from, and we have little respect for those who think that we are. (That's a royal 'we', folks, based on experience here, not on presuming the right to speak for anyone else).
-
nzlemming, in reply to
(That’s a royal ‘we’, folks, based on experience here, not on presuming the right to speak for anyone else).
Still waiting for the obvious 'trickle down' joke, Sacha...
-
That’s just lazy rubbish. Two of the three are serial professional liars while the third is an internationally-respected investigative journalist who has never had a single fact in any of his books successfully challenged.
Why else do you think people like the PM go straight to personal attacks on Hager (which when repeated often enough may result in people who do not do their homework forming an impression of a ‘controversial reputation’, exactly as intended)? You’ve been cheated.
+1
(That’s a royal ‘we’, folks, based on experience here, not on presuming the right to speak for anyone else).
I'm ok with that. I agree with everyone on this page except Pete George's waffle.
-
Pete George, in reply to
And that doesn’t worry you? Fine. That makes you part of the problem.
Don't answer your own question for me.
It's obviously a problem that more and more people get turned off by dirty politics. That's why I try to address the problems across the board, not selecting one side or the other.
Most parties are relatively clean, coincidentally (or not) Greens, Conservatives, Maori Party, ACT and UF all increased in today's NZH poll.
National, Labour and NZ First all have histories of running dirty, smearing, lying campaigns. Being selective about who is worse or not diverts from the issue - they all need to be challenged to leave last century politics behind.
It's very disappointing Key hasn't stepped up and condemned what has come out over the past couple of weeks.
It appears that Cunliffe and Labour are trying to rise above it with their Vote Positive approach, as long as they walk the walk. It doesn't help when Goff stirs up historical dirty stuff when his own hands aren't clean, and Grant Robertson can't help dabbling still either, he learnt too much from working with Helen Clark.
I don't think Peters will change but probably won't last much longer.
How about building a campaign to pressure all parties and MPs to improve behaviour? I know many MPs hate the current levels of dirt and disrespect but obviously have difficulty confronting and containing the entrenched habits of a few.
-
Pete George, in reply to
while the third is an internationally-respected investigative journalist.
Yes Hager is "an internationally-respected investigative journalist" to some degree. There's a number of claims this is not his best work by a long shot. He doesn't seem to have checked out any of his claims with those he has effectively accused, not a good practice for a supposed journalist.
who has never had a single fact in any of his books successfully challenged.
Really? Hager admitted he got the moving prisoner claim wrong in his current book and that he shouldn't have included it. That caused a flurry of accusations for a day or two.
Mostly he has just quoted selected parts of conversations with insinuations - that's a common form of dirty politics where it's difficult for those targeted to prove they haven't done something.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Hager admitted he got the moving prisoner claim wrong in his current book and that he shouldn’t have included it.
Got a link?
-
I now know why John Key smiles a lot. He smiles when he is lying.
-
we always work .... and political junkies
Whoever gave you that buzzword should have explained that they didn't literally mean drug-dependent sociopaths?
(see also "helicopter view")
-
I keep saying he reads like every marketting guy I ever worked with which means you can easily tell when he's lying ... it's when he opens his mouth
-
What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from <str>Bennett</str>Collins, but the evidence didn’t positively support it, and so he dropped it from the main text, but left the supposition – marked as a supposition, not as a factual claim – in a footnote.
This all sounds absolutely in keeping with standards of academic writing.
But can somebody with the actual book confirm the actual wording?ETA: Collins. (Ta nzlemming.)
-
Sacha, in reply to
He doesn't seem to have checked out any of his claims with those he has effectively accused, not a good practice for a supposed journalist.
It would have been injuncted as soon as any of them were told about the book. Don't be a fool.
to some degree
beige
-
Sacha, in reply to
that's precisely how he described it on Media Take.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from Bennett
Collins, but otherwise correct.
-
SteveH, in reply to
What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from Bennett, but the evidence didn’t positively support it, and so he dropped it from the main text, but left the supposition – marked as a supposition, not as a factual claim – in a footnote.
Wasn't it was Collins he initially thought was responsible? Has anything come to light about who did get the prisoner transferred?
-
chinashop, in reply to
The books says:
in this period when Collins was also minister of corrections, [Slater] appears to have used a prison officer in the department to move a prisoner between prisons on his instructions.
(That's in the text in chapter 4, not the footnote.)
-
Rodney Hide has emphatically disputed what Hager said about him being blackmailed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11309981David Farrar has just posted:
I was not the organiser of the party, and was not a party to the conversation. Yet Hager published this as fact. It is reasonably defamatory as various people have smeared me over it.
Now this e-mail is presumably why Hager thought I was the organiser. But he gets it totally wrong. They are laughing at the fact that someone thinks I am the organiser. This is the problem where you write a book on stolen e-mails, and don’t verify, fact check, or interview a single person for it.
If Mr Hager is doing reprints of his book, I would appreciate it if he could make the appropriate corrections.
And perhaps this is a lesson to everyone out there, not to take everything in the book at face value. If he has got this wrong, what else has he got wrong? Again this is what happens when you don’t verify anything or give people a chance to respond.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/how_hager_got_it_wrong_on_the_princess_party.html
There are a number of insinuations that are not based on facts.
A journalist would do their job thoroughly and factually enough that they wouldn't be concerned about injunctions.
-
linger, in reply to
Mostly he has just quoted selected parts of conversations with insinuations
What exactly are you insinuating?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Sorry if I've missed it Pete, but have you at any point devoted any of your unending outrage towards the actual hideous content of that rape conversation? Or expressed sympathy for the young women being targeted by these creeps?
-
Let’s play “Spot the Difference”
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Sorry if I've missed it Pete, but have you at any point devoted any of your unending outrage towards the actual hideous content of that rape conversation? Or expressed sympathy for the young women being targeted by these creeps?
You will recall Peter is the guy who compared asking sponsors to give money to Rape Prevention Education to date rape.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Jordan Williams was on last week on the afternoon of the Hager launch. Be very interesting to see if/when he next appears.
His boss, Stephen Franks, was hilarious today. He kept saying that he'd been away skiing and missed it all, so he might as well just pass on the whole thing.
-
Sacha, in reply to
'emphatically disputed' doesn't amount to disproved. Why are you so keen to defend these guys anyway?
-
Rachel Glucina finally touches on the Dirty Politics affair… but being her usual vapid self, still framing it around Judith Collins. And she can’t bring herself to mention Nicky Hager.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
'emphatically disputed' doesn't amount to disproved. Why are you so keen to defend these guys anyway?
Plus, you know, we actually have the messages exchanged between Lusk and Slater about the Hide blackmail, and no-one is disputing their veracity. So either they were lying to each other, or...
-
This might actually be this week's weirdest media thing.
Sean Plunket's bizarre cold-call to Patrick Gower implying that Gower was privy to the hacking on the basis of what a handful of listeners thought they recalled hearing him say.
It's staggeringly unprofessional of Plunket to not even try to find the original audio before calling a journalists working for the same company live on air and taunting him. WTF?
This copy of the audio was retrieved by one of my Twitter followers because it's been deleted by Radio Live. No wonder.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.