Island Life: Helen who?
71 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Graeme, do you mean "that that spending may constitute a donation"?
-
I did already have a "may" in there, but yes.
It is not clear cut, and there has been no decision (or even discussion as far as I am aware) by the Electoral Commission or a Court, but I know that if I was paying for Labour Party leaflets that would be a donation, and I am presently struggling to a find a substantive distinction between me doing it and the Parliamentary Service doing it.
-
It says something about the relative status of the respective Labo(u)r governments that I don't recall there being any discussion or examination of the Australian publication...
Well, whatever you say about the incumbent Government you've got to admit that steaming turds like John Della Bosca, and downright twisted misters like Troy Buswell, don't have easy analogues this side of the pond. And as I've said before, I was kind of shocked at the 'public information' campaign blitz that just happened to coincide with the state elections. One could be cynical and say the media were doing very nicely out of the status quo, and the Coalition didn't want to make too much of fuss because they weren't any better.
-
What's the bet that should National win power, they too will indulge in post-Budget promo guff? I'm not saying it's right, just that they'll be just as tempted to as Labour has been.
-
owen,
"imagine being able to deliver a free marketing sample to every home in New Zealand once or several times a week. It would be absolutely chocker with editorial content bashing the parties you don't like and lauding the parties you do like.....and writing it all off as a marketing expense to build circulation. You could editorially endorse your favourite party....and be completely free of any EFA encumbrance or limits."
The New Zealand Herald already do this.
As for stock photos . . . so what? They're used to save ten's of thousands of dollars that would otherwise be spent on photographing a "real" family.
What's the difference from a national daily using syndicated content from Reuters, Independant or the Guardian?
Yet another case of "nothing to see here"
-
I think the provenance of the photograph is a distraction, however it's precisely this kind of distraction that you'd expect to avoid by either using an agency, who'd manage this for you, or being directly assured of the origin of any photos.
Oh, I disagree. I think that if someone wants to make a fuss about the photo, they'll find a way to make a fuss about the photo.
- the woman in the photo got a detention at school! She's a poor role model for our youth!
- the woman in the photo never got a detention at school! This is just more evidence of elitism!
- the man in the photo is a vegetarian! Think of our exporters!
- the man in the photo is a meat eater! Think of our health care costs!
- etcOr maybe they'll complain that the font wasn't designed in New Zealand (our typographers need work too!), or that the colours used were Pantone ones instead of from a Good Honest New Zealand Colourspace.
(hmm, these all come frighteningly easy to me)
-
Oh, I disagree. I think that if someone wants to make a fuss about the photo, they'll find a way to make a fuss about the photo.
Yes, Amy, and don't you think National is going to erring on the side of caution when it comes to the soundtrack to their campaign adverts? It won't stop the usual suspects hearing the rustlings of Rogernomes bearing secret agendas in the closet, but you can do your very best to avoid moments like this
The so-called "red-phone ad" was played all over the country and helped turn the tide for Hillary Clinton leading up to her big win in Ohio. The ad shows a sleeping child and asks voters who they would want to see answering a 3 a.m. emergency phone call to the White House.
[...] The first girl in the ad is young Casey Knowles. It's stock footage from eight years ago when she worked as a TV extra - footage owned now by Getty Images and used by the Clinton campaign.
But they couldn't have picked a more unwilling star.
"It's really sort of ironic that my image would be used to advocate for Hillary when I myself do not," said Casey.
[...]
"I've been campaigning for Barack Obama for a few months now," she said. "I was actually a precinct captain at the caucuses a few months ago. I attended his rally a few months ago and I'm a very, very avid supporter."
Not suggesting the Clinton campaign did anything unlawful or unethical. But I sure don't think this was the story the Clinton campaign wanted getting national attention.
-
Graeme - thanks for that, as far as it goes. so if the budget specifically funds donations it is legal. if it does not then there is a problem....
-
Donation: A voluntary gift or contribution for a specific cause
Parliamentary Services are funding parties information campaigns in compliance with a statutory duty they've had based on them. That isn't voluntary, so it isn't a donation.
The TV advertising is just the same - it isn't a "donation" by the Electoral Commission.
-
s/based/placed
-
Craig said:
...you've got to admit that steaming turds like John Della Bosca, and downright twisted misters like Troy Buswell, don't have easy analogues this side of the pond
I'll keep my views on Della to myself but it's worth noting that the heat is now on federal MP Belinda Neal... however you're general point is undeniably true - you'd struggle to find a NZ MP that would compare with some of the ogres that occupy state and federal parliament in Australia.
Graeme said:
Labour Party leaflets that would be a donation, and I am presently struggling to a find a substantive distinction between me doing it and the Parliamentary Service doing it.
I'd've thought if the publication was clearly a Labour one, then the distinction would be difficult but if it was a government publication, even if it were heavily branded, surely it would be within the PS remit?
Amy said:
Oh, I disagree. I think that if someone wants to make a fuss about the photo, they'll find a way to make a fuss about the photo.
I don't disagree but the point I was making was that the agency ought to have been aware of the political environment - I do think this is a beat-up and I agree, if it wasn't the stock photo, it'd be the cost of the original artwork.
-
Parliamentary Services are funding parties information campaigns in compliance with a statutory duty they've had based on them. That isn't voluntary, so it isn't a donation.
Yes.
What gets me annoyed about it is that it has twisted 'information campaigns' so far into 'party political advertising'. If we're going to fund that, we should at least say that's what we're doing.
It's not a case of the rules being broken, it's a case of the rules being bent so much that they need to be fixed either way.
-
Back to Craig's earlier point, the latest development in the fracas in the Central Coast is the Police intend to examine the stat decs...
-
you'd struggle to find a NZ MP that would compare with some of the ogres that occupy state and federal parliament in Australia
Yeah, corruption here is leaving an attribution off a political leaflet.
Corruption in Aussie is conspiring with the mafia to import large quantities of smack, then having anyone who finds out murdered and dumped in motorway foundations.
(Exaggerated, but not much)
-
That's quite an exaggeration really - no one was killed when this top drug cop conspired to import 600kgs of ice to pay off his gambling debts ... come on now, a little balance please!
-
Late to the party, but I'm with Amy, Rich, and Che on this.
i am however willing to state my surprise at the herald running a stupid story about a cheap photo.
Particularly when that same newspaper, along with most in New Zealand, frequently relies on stock photos to illustrate local stories on generic topics.
-
Parliamentary Services are funding parties information campaigns in compliance with a statutory duty they've had based on them. That isn't voluntary, so it isn't a donation.
The TV advertising is just the same - it isn't a "donation" by the Electoral Commission.
Parliamentary Services is statutorily obligated to fund the parliamentary wings of parliamentary parties. This was a publication initiated by Mike Smith, who is nothing to do with the Labour parliamentary party (and if it wasn't initiated by Mike Smith, then someone may have put a false promoter statement on it).
There is certainly a reasonable argument to be made that in choosing to direct Parliamentary Service to spend money effectively belonging to the Labour parliamentary party on the Labour Party, it was a donation of the Labour parliamentary party to the Labour Party (and not a donation from Parliamentary Services). However at present Mike Smith and the Labour Party have $25,000+ of leaflets they did not pay for and were not entitled to have. Someone gave them to them without being legally obliged to - I'm at least presently of the view that that constitutes a donation from someone.
[p.s. I realise my use of the word entitled can be ambiguous: I am saying that the Labour Party couldn't have insisted upon being given the leaflets; I am not saying it has them illegally.]
-
Yeah, corruption here is leaving an attribution off a political leaflet.
Corruption in Aussie is conspiring with the mafia to import large quantities of smack, then having anyone who finds out murdered and dumped in motorway foundations.
(Exaggerated, but not much)
Well, Rich, to paraphrase Chris Rock I'm not going to be a low-expectation-having motherfucker and pat people on the head for not acting like lawless sociopaths. Sorry if this sounds rather pompous, but I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that the people who passed the EFA actually follow it.
-
Craig, I won't argue the point re the EFA, however it's still important to acknowledge that NZ is one of the least corrupt nations on this planet; something I think we should all be thankful for. I think you're right that we should maintain high standards also - it's the only way we'll retain the benefits of transparency.
I've thought a lot about why NZ is so squeaky-clean. I'm sure there's many factors; one that may be particualrly important is the relative size of the country - it's difficult to be a corrupt bastard when you're almost certain to end up living, working or socialising with someone who is the uncle, aunty or cousin of the victim(s) of your bastardry.
-
Ohn those baby ads... and all the rest. I'm going to do my bit for Labour this time by not donating any money to them. At least until after I see what their advertising looks like. On record, the less they spend on advertising, the more likely people are going to respond favourably.
-
Using a stock photo sourced from the US didn't bother me in the slightest. But yes, this really pist me off:
Not after the flak they copped for their Working for Families ad with iPod-bedecked kids in a designer kitchen.
It just rankled.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.