Hard News: The Disingenuous Press
366 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
I wouldn't be keen to see that, especially given the grovelling nature of the apology already offered.
I found the apology appalling.
The rules should be:
Anyone has the right to protest about anything.
Protests by their nature will cause minor disruption and annoyance, which is OK. Small price to pay for freedom of speech.
Major disruption which breaks the law may lead to sanctions against the protesters which is also OK.
(PMs shouldn't apologise for protests against China. They should act all innocent and say "Oh, that doesn't happen back in China? Is everyone there very happy with the government?").I've been surprised by how many people I'd have expected to be somewhat sympathetic have bluntly scorned Norman when the subject comes up in conversation.
I don't agree with that either. But I don't think that the problem here is that the police didn't flail around for a day trying to charge someone for an umbrella in the face, an elbow, and a grab and trample of a flag (or similar) who's cloistered behind diplomatic protection.
I think Norman would be getting less public scorn if the PM or other top people (Phil Goff) had shown a couple more testicles and said "I don't agree with his protest, but he was perfectly entitled to be there" or similar.
Like you say, protest is OK, or it's not OK. If Norman has crossed a line he should be sanctioned by the police or by the speaker, but I fail to see how "embarassing the VP of China" gets anywhere the hell near that line.
-
Three parts ignorance, one part authoritarianism, with a twist of malice.
Grind down, repress, then lock in a shipping container of ice.neither shaken, nor stirred,
just mixed up...Anyway, here's some John Cale.
suddenly I am side of stage at the Gluepot... Bliss!
-
think Norman would be getting less public scorn if the PM or other top people (Phil Goff) had shown a couple more testicles and said "I don't agree with his protest, but he was perfectly entitled to be there" or similar.
Which isn't that far from what he did say to the Herald: Goff defends Norman's right to protest:
Mr Goff said he hadn't seen footage of the incident but knew enough to suggest there may have been an over-reaction. "I don't think it's on at all -- that should not have happened."
"We expect people to be respectful to our visitors, but we also retain the right to protest peacefully."
He said if Dr Norman felt aggrieved, then he backed the decision to lay a complaint with police.
What he said in the Stuff story was different, but nowhere near Key and English's demands that Norman apologise personally to the Chinese government:
However, he is increasingly coming under fire for his protest. Yesterday, Labour leader Phil Goff also voiced his concern, saying that, although the Chinese had no right to snatch the flag, Dr Norman could have overstepped the mark.
"Did Russel Norman behave with the dignity you might have expected from an MP? I think he might have learnt from Rod Donald's lesson of standing back, giving a bit of space, making the point but not being confrontational."
Is it really that bad to uphold the right to protest but offer the opinion that Norman was being a bit of a dick at the time? Even if you think it's not true, and as you note, protest often needs to be annoying.
I thought Goff -- of whom I am no great fan -- also had a point when he asked exactly what Norman meant when he shouted "Free Tibet now!". Not separate statehood, I presume (which would lose in Tibet on a democratic vote amongst its present population). Although I suppose "Greater autonomy and more religious freedom for Tibet, now!" is a bit of a mouthful.
-
I am very surprised at how aggressively Key and co. have come out and attacked Norman over this. Maybe their incessant polling told them that in key demographics their kowtowing didn't go down well.
But then again, when I consider it, John Key is a rank amateur politician, a multi-millionaire opportunist and careerist dabbling in politics. John Key likes to run his government like a company CEO, with a kitchen cabinet of like minded men in suits ( fellow self made man Joyce and the arch technocrat English) and various lesser board members. Like most CEO's he prefers secrecy in decision making (abuse of urgency, the stench of back room deals on the F&S, mining, and PEDA, the preference for publicly unaccountable private sector agencies to run things like Whanau ora and, it seems, soon welfare) and tightly scripted PR opportunites (how many times has he refused to appear on Morning Report again?), with minimal accountabilty to the wider public.
Key has probably never actually been on a protest in his life. His life experience has been exclusively in the corporate world, which not surprisingly is the model he uses to run his government. In the corporate world the big wigs don't like being held accountable in public (except to shareholders every now and again) to anyone and much prefer operating in a culture of corporate secrecy and privilege.
It seems to me that John Key regards freedom of speech as an abstract thing done by bolshie, placard waving, others, something not entirely aligned to his personal corporate values and something to be therefore circumscribed if it becomes inconvenient.
-
Is it really that bad to uphold the right to protest but offer the opinion that Norman was being a bit of a dick at the time? Even if you think it's not true, and as you note, protest often needs to be annoying.
The problem (in general) I have with Goff is that he can't seem to make a clear statement of where he stands on a bunch of things. It's a bit of "on the one hand but on the other hand". Feels like he always ends up saying nothing at all.
The left (if we can generously call Labour that) needs a leader who can at some point say something clear, unequivocal so we all know that they're a party that stands for something.
This I don't get:
"We expect people to be respectful to our visitors, but we also retain the right to protest peacefully."
What Goff is saying is that he wants protesters to be over there, in the background, a few signs, and quietly respectful. He's trying to look supportive while actually not being supportive while appeasing the people who think Norman went too far, but not enough to piss off the left. How many fence posts does he need up his butt before he picks a side?
I wouldn't mind so much "Norman had the right to protest, but he was silly". What he said to me was "Norman had the right to protest, but just not to be effective."
Expecting dignity from an MP? He's new around here right?
-
"Free Tibet now!". Not separate statehood, I presume (which would lose in Tibet on a democratic vote amongst its present population). Although I suppose "Greater autonomy and more religious freedom for Tibet, now!" is a bit of a mouthful.
This is important, and why the whole thing left me wondering what he hoped to achieve. If everyone goes off and reads the complexity of the situation, sifts through propaganda, on both sides, and arrives at some higher level of understanding, and subsequently knowledge, upon which we can hang our pointy hats, then good. Does "Free Tibet Now" do this? Meh.
Still, here we are discussing it, so might not be so foolish after all.
-
I've been surprised by how many people I'd have expected to be somewhat sympathetic have bluntly scorned Norman
Well I would think that a protest, (as stated in the Oxford English Reference Dictionary),being 1) an expression of disapproval or dissent and 2) to declare solemnly or firmly..... or action of disapproval. is exactly what Dr Norman was entitled to and set out to do just that.
To that point I believe Dr Norman has had a very definite effective outcome.As to the rest, an apology from the PM is seen for what it really is.I'd suggest arse crawl (but one must check with the Ranapian Dictionary on that ;) Saying that, I'd expect it, but put it down to inexperience that the current PM has with diplomatic affairs, something I'd suggest is where Helen would run rings around him. That was probably the back door scenario that worked in the past.
The events in the House yesterday, as Dr Norman tried to make a personal statement, actually helped him yet again because it showed the Government literally shutting him down, almost a sense of it siding with the Chinese delegation of their practise of oppression.
So of all of this, In a healthy democracy such as ours, the fear of Chinese disapproval from the Government, was sad but inevitable.Good on Dr Norman for exercising his right to protest, on the grounds of a place he was put by many a New Zealander. True to his belief and everything the Green Party stand for.
Jus' sayin' -
This is important, and why the whole thing left me wondering what he hoped to achieve.
I think it's not at all important, in terms of what has arisen out of it. The right to protest should not be dependent on making perfect sense, or dealing with the complexity of the issues.
-
I wouldn't mind so much "Norman had the right to protest, but he was silly". What he said to me was "Norman had the right to protest, but just not to be effective."
What about Norman had the right to protest but accept the consequence that may occur from his actions when up against the government and their guests. I'd suggest Goff is a pragmatist of which allows him to see both sides without damming either. He seems the one held more accountable in this now, when the Nact Party seem to be floating.
-
I'd suggest Goff is a pragmatist of which allows him to see both sides without damming either.
This might be great if he was a mediator, but he's supposed to be the leader of a major political party.
Which requires complexity, but it seems to me that this instance requires a yes/no answer. "Is Norman entitled to be there protesting in a vocal manner?" Key at least said "no", which makes him clearly someone that I disagree with. Goff is someone who feels to me like he can't bear to come down on one side of an issue in case it offends some potential voters.
-
I think it's not at all important, in terms of what has arisen out of it. The right to protest should not be dependent on making perfect sense, or dealing with the complexity of the issues.
I agree. My question was more whether he had privileged access to the scene, and whether that had any bearing on the situation.
I wonder if journalists have generally come down fairly hard on Norman because two of their number have just been hit very hard by the Speaker for doing what he is said to have done after he picked up his flag -- pursuing someone through Parliament, shouting at them.
-
I wonder if journalists have generally come down fairly hard on Norman because two of their number have just been hit very hard by the Speaker for doing what he is said to have done after he picked up his flag -- pursuing someone through Parliament, shouting at them.
Perhaps (though I'd like to give journalists a little more credit than spite-fucking Norman because they don't dare piss on The Speaker), but as I've said do you think Colin Espiner would be taking a slightly different line if Parliamentary Security shoved a camera crew out of the path of a minister? Perhaps I'm too insensitive for Parliament, but I don't actually find a microphone any more of a mortal peril than a scrap of fabric.
-
My question was more whether he had privileged access to the scene, and whether that had any bearing on the situation.
Well that's a valid question. I don't know the rules very well, but I'd be surprised if what he did breached any rules of parliament in any serious way. At this stage the speaker would look silly applying any sanction, though obviously he may not let that stop him.
-
Goff is someone who feels to me like he can't bear to come down on one side of an issue in case it offends some potential voters.
Well of course he is tredding carefully, he is tactical, and is well aware of how anything he says will be twisted. As for an example of the man's ability with a yes /no answer, he taught me a valuable lesson once. I needed advice regarding the law and my chances on a personal matter. His answer was "yes I was within my right to argue in my defence and although I was in the right, my defence would be costly, and justice and the law are 2 different things, so he would say no don't waste your money. weight up the cost versus the cheaper option, which was to accept that my opponent could afford to beat me.He did advise to offer them the only one option of which was the most inconvenient to them, as they would have to accept and I finished with that problem on April fools of which it felt most satisfying So he is very good with yes and no answers ;)
-
When has a protest by the left ever been treated sympathetically by the main media? If reported at all they are trivialised and numbers downplayed. I don't recall any friendly treatment of anti-Vietnam war or anti-apartheid protests. Protestors were always portrayed as violent, out of control, and causing problems for NZ's relationship with the foreign power concerned.
Which is why I found last Sunday's Prime television programme on the history of TV so fascinating. Those working there during the 81 tour, reported that newsrooms had been as divided as the rest of the country.
-
I'd suggest Goff is a pragmatist of which allows him to see both sides without damming either. He seems the one held more accountable in this now, when the Nact Party seem to be floating.
Oh, you sure of that Sofie -- 'cause I'm really feeling the love for Key and McCully around here right now. And if you want to tune into Radio Live after the 7pm news on Sunday, I fully intend to give Key and Goff an entirely bi-partisan serve. Because I feel pretty fucking disrespected by their definition of "respect" -- but, hey, I'm only a citizen of this country.
When has a protest by the left ever been treated sympathetically by the main media?
If you want to characterise those anti-mining demos as "left", I'd say not long ago at all.
-
Sofie, I'll say again. That might make him a good mediator, I don't see how that makes him a good leader of a major political party.
Just because things are complex, sometimes political leaders need to try and make them clear, which they can do by coming back to principles. Goff just seems to muddy everything.
-
Hey Craig, what number is Radio live on the dial?
-
I don't see how that makes him a good leader of a major political party.
Safe? Um, not dissing you for your view but what do you think Key showed, to be a good leader of a major party? I don't think that really is how the average voter evaluates the leadership and I know you are not average Kyle but you do seem to understand perception.
-
Hey Craig, what number is Radio live on the dial?
In Auckland: 100.6 FM or 702 AM. Think they also do a live audio feed through the website, but that's not entirely reliable the times I've tried it out.
Safe? Um, not dissing you for your view but what do you think Key showed, to be a good leader of a major party?
He actually dragged his party back into the center, and actually took a stand on some things that were far from universally popular with the usual suspects (like supporting the anti-smacking legislation and sticking to it).
And you'd be shocked how many people I know would say "I'd never vote for that bitch, Helen Clark, but at least you know where she's coming from." On this, Goff just sounded like the political equivalent of an equation that perfectly cancels itself out.
-
Thank you possum. :) I will wait for you with bated breath
-
But, hey, nice to see Labour's really got their eyes on the big issues, while reversing the prohibition in the Policing Act on serving police officers contesting local body elections is apparently a matter that requires the House to be put under urgency. Again.
And it's Russell Norman exposing New Zealand's legislature to ridicule and contempt?
-
TBF, that's posted under humour, sport on Red Alert.I think Trev is making a point that yet again they are under urgency, and didn't they look tired today? Quinn was sound asleep. :)
-
TBF, that's posted under humour, sport on Red Alert.
It's filed under: "Holidays, events, legislation, sport, urgency".
-
Original idea yesterday was under sport, humour holiday.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.