That nice Mr Molyneux is showing his true colours again.
It's worth noting that the fraudulent "Free Speech Coalition" still have their website up, reminding us that Molyneux was the victim that really mattered to them. (They haven't said anything at all since May, so I guess there haven't been any free speech issues to worry about any more).
Of course, the FSC can exercise their free speech to attack or defend whoever they want. Or to be silent, and stare at their shoes. It just so happens that there have been far more attacks by their supporters on Golriz Ghahraman than on Stefan Molyneux. Priorities and preferences ... all freely chosen. And saying so much.
Terrible editorial judgement on TV1 news tonight. They gave a platform to a far-right guy, the sole source of the story. He cast himself as a victim, and the reporter (Thomas Mead) played along. There was no independent reporting, they simply relayed his phone footage. He then got to make his claims, was not challenged in an interview, with no evidence of any wrongdoing by police, nothing to merit this even being a story, let alone a lead.
What were they thinking?
Newshub (AM Show) are at it again.
Previously a complaint was upheld against Newshub for their fake poll. They admitted it was rigged - they got spammed.
Response: "As a result of this complaint the MediaWorks digital team is auditing the polling application."
So today there's another "poll" and guess what? 87% (as of now) negative on the Budget. It rose rapidly in no time. It seems nothing has changed at MediaWorks.
To be clear, I'm not shouting "Bias!". It's not even that. It's complete indifference to truth, and journalism. And it does matter (saying "I don't watch" is beside the point). The numbers are then used in wider news coverage. It's called a poll. It isn't a poll. It's a lie. And it's not good enough.
It's just a shame (though inevitable) how many commentators did the headless chicken on the whole story. It's the ultimate insider game, and pronouncing who "Wins", without regard to the actual voters, can only reinforce the negative public perception of politics.
To take just one example, I bet if you asked people on the street, they'd be far more interested in today's announcement on school donations, than in the Bridges/Treasury row. Something real and measurable, that makes a difference. But ... it will get 1% of the media coverage.
She was responding to the New Conservatives' deputy leader. Her description is hardly inaccurate.
Take some time to read their online output, which at the time of that tweet included people like David Moffett (he has since moved on). Bigotry is exactly what they embody, or worse, pander to.
Swarbrick is out of line? Well, the leader of the National Party calls the Greens communist. And he wants to be Prime Minister.
Every vote for Peter Dunne, over 4 or 5 successive elections, was a non-binding referendum on whether Labour or National would be in government.
I'd rather take my chances with the 95% probability of this referendum result being honoured by Labour and the Greens, than throw darts blindfold at Dunne's dartboard.
Well, now we know National’s official line. It’s “Gummy Bears”. The new “Slushies”.
Simon said “gummy” 4 times in his short stand-up this morning. He wanted to make sure we all got the message. His deputy has been repeating it too. Honestly, where do they get their ideas from? Old Simpsons episodes?
That's true. But National's quandary is that Labour and the Greens can simply say "We will accept the result of the referendum". They want a Yes, but will accept a No - however unhappily. Status quo remains.
Whereas National will want a No, but dare not say that they will ignore a Yes. Imagine going into an election campaign saying "Vote for us to be the government, and we promise to ignore the majority vote".
It's a shame the law won't be passed before the election, so they'd better make sure the question is watertight.
Still, National are now screwed (assuming they don't join the party, which would still be their best option politically). National have to oppose the referendum happening at all, or campaign for a 'No' vote, because simply saying "let's talk about issues XYZ instead" won't wash. The media will keep asking.
Cracking post. Thanks.
A lot to discuss there, but let me just take one, because it's so true and it bugs me so much:
Most of the people I’ve mentioned are gifted communicators who could do so much better if they tried, or if the incentives supported them to.
If you can hit a golf ball, or play the violin, or install a kitchen, you have to do it the very best you can, or you won't make any money. Nobody wants to pay for slapdash work that is so much less than you're capable of.
Whereas people who churn out the reckons are effectively discouraged from doing better. Why pick up a good book and educate yourself before spouting? You will only add nuance and depth and fresh perspectives, and you're not getting paid for that. It is deeply ironic that the Hosking-types will often proclaim that our society/economy should reward hard work and excellence, while demonstrating neither.
The critics (and I'm one, every day) are also at fault here. We shout "Bias!" when that isn't really the point. Nothing wrong with a conservative columnist who makes me think, who challenges me in my cosy liberal comfort zone. I just can't think of any in NZ who do. Who even bother to marshall evidence and write well. Because they have no incentive to do so.