OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance
397 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Even if, as you suggest, people thought the government was taking NZ in the right direction therefore Dirty Politics didn’t fly, it is still true that the media failed to hold Collins to account, failed to hold Katherine Rich to account, and more or less failed to hold Ede/Key to account.
Well, this presupposes there was a "correct" outcome. I assume you believe (as do I) that Dirty Politics really ought to have seen Collins immediately sacked, Rich shamed from her various roles, and a large voter swing to the left of politics. You're then saying that the fact this has not in fact happened represents a failure of the media (despite the media trying to do what it should have).
But why? Why isn't it the voters or the people of New Zealand that failed? After all, they were given chapter and verse of the allegations Hager (and Greenwald and Snowden) raised. The media pounded those responsible (well, most of them) for days and days on end and showed the results on TV/in the papers/on the radio. And 48% of those who voted shrugged and said "meh" - with more people voting this time than did 3 years ago. So, just who "failed" here?
Which raises a nasty possibility, Whisper it just quietly in your inner voice at the dead of night: maybe it's people like us and what we see as being "correct" who are ... wrong? Or, at least, in a small minority that is unable to affect national politics ... which amounts to the same thing? And if so, what right do we have to demand that the institution of journalism/media "reform itself" to produce the "correct" outcomes that we desire?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I thought ess than 1/3 of eligible voter voted National?
Yeah should've been 30% not 40% - damn editors where are they when you need them.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
You imply that democracy consists of putting ticks in boxes every 3 years. It doesn’t.
No. I'm saying that if you don't put a tick in a box every 3 years, then all the other democracy stuff you do is pretty much pointless.*
*Caveat - if you do democracy stuff that affects how other people put ticks in boxes, then it still has a point. But trying to get other people to change how they vote is still less effective than being part of a heavily voting cohort that garners politicians' attention for that reason alone.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
depends on what purpose you’re using it for.
So what purpose is the MSM using the 50% figure for?
If you say "of the population" you should use ~20%
If you say "of eligible voters" you should use ~30%
If you say "of those who voted" you should use 48%Unless you are trying to deceive, then use whichever mashup of numbers suits your purpose.
-
I just cannot get over how the waters just flow over the jagged underwater dangerous Key sabotage tactics. This post by Keith suggests that there are still some people out there who are concerned enough to at least write about the collapse of integrity. What can we actually do about it though?
There must be some National MPs and supporters who care as well -isn't there?
Mighty effort Keith! -
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
So what purpose is the MSM using the 50% figure for?
They're using it as shorthand for "the electoral system that allowed those who wanted to use their easily accessible vote to choose their representatives produced an outcome where National has a majority in the legislature, thereby permitting it to govern on its own."
-
Sacha, in reply to
I assume you believe (as do I) that Dirty Politics really ought to have seen Collins immediately sacked, Rich shamed from her various roles, and a large voter swing to the left of politics.
The first two would be basic expectations in a functioning democracy (which journalists are meant to be part of).
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
The first two would be basic expectations in a functioning democracy (which journalists are meant to be part of).
So ... are we not in a functioning democracy? Seriously?
Because, if so, what on earth are we doing arguing on a blogsite ... we should be building a fire on main street and shooting it full of holes!!!
You go ahead and get started. I've a couple of things to finish up before I join you later.
-
I have given up calling the employees of the Herald, Journalists, even those with that word in their job description. If they must have a word to differentiate them from the mail boy or the tea lady, the press operator or the typesetter (yes I am that old) then let it be Advertising Copywriter or, as the early elite of that field were called, Madmen.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We're talking here because traditional media isn't. The 4th estate has long been regarded as an arm of democracy. Good luck claiming ours has been doing its job.
-
izogi, in reply to
The idea that a mob of journos chasing politicians around sticking a mic in their face could hold them accountable needs to be reexamined. But of course, that’s tantamount to a radical reinvention of political journalism
Is there a reason why it needs to be journalism that’s responsible for this? Why not (I don’t know), the Police, who always seem so reluctant to get involved in anything that involves politics? Or some constitutionally-designed non-partisan overlord of Cabinet which is there to make sure the laws and rules are followed and that Cabinet members and their staff are held accountable, instead of those laws and rules simply being ignored on the grounds that it’s easy enough to eclipse any bad publicity with a popularity contest?
As you say, there’s possibly only so much that journalists can do. Ministers stonewall or completely avoid them, while at the same time obfuscating the issues through outlets more favourable to them, and it ends up being stuff that much of the public doesn’t want to hear about anyway. People get sick and tired of watching when nothing’s happening. Even a crusader like John Campbell has to give up and find other stories, or his ratings would plummet.
CE’s of companies are bound by the law, enforced on behalf of stakeholders by any number of government entities. Even government dept chief executives are accountable to the SSC. But Cabinet’s apparently responsible to the Prime Minister? IMHO that’s something that needs an impartial review longer term of how it works. We shouldn’t have to simply trust Cabinet members and their staff to be doing the right thing, especially with all the political conflicts of interest, no matter who’s in power.
Maybe the PM and his colleagues and staff are all completely innocent of all of these recent allegations, but when it’s Key himself who kicks things off and controls its terms of reference for an inquiry, don’t mind me if I’m sceptical of how complete and meaningful its conclusions will be.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
After all, weeks – literally weeks – of Dirty Politics coverage didn’t move the polls at all.
Because "the media" (with damn few exceptions) didn't cover Dirty Politics as much as National's dismissal of Dirty Politics.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Good luck claiming ours has been doing its job.
Of course, when you define "its job" in terms of "produced the particular outcome I would like to see happen", then it hasn't. But is that the correct definition?
-
Off topic. Just spotted Stuart Nash, Josie Paganism lunching together.
-
SHG, in reply to
JK was secretly calling DPF every night
"Secretly"? What was he supposed to do, announce each call at a press conference?
It was a campaign. Farrar was a pollster employed by the National party. Frankly I'd be surprised if Key didn't speak to him on on hourly basis around the clock.
-
Scuse the typo.
-
Stephen R, in reply to
CE’s of companies are bound by the law, enforced on behalf of stakeholders by any number of government entities.
Unless the CE can get someone to smear the head of the SFO badly enough that they back off...
edited to add: Or the funding for the IRD investigations for tax fraud is reduced, (while the funding for investigating welfare fraud of much less funds is increased)
-
Kevin McCready, in reply to
Andrew,
1. have you had time to read
http://pressthink.org/2011/08/why-political-coverage-is-broken/2. To the extent that journos aren't of the Jay Rosen view then the notion that we are in a functioning democracy fails.
3. It also fails because NZ electorate seats are far from being decided democratically. Counting them under a preferential system where
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The idea that a mob of journos chasing politicians around sticking a mic in their face could hold them accountable needs to be reexamined.
So much this. But that's not going to change any time soon. It's not unknown for Gallery journos to do actual investigative reporting, but it's not really part of the job description. There simply isn't time for it when Gallery journalists' job is to produce something every day and capture the major moments (which everyone else has too). On most days, the distinction between the leading reporters is in how they editorialise on the same news.
Hager's actually pretty understanding about this when he's asked in interviews. They're just different jobs operating to different deadlines.
I do feel the need to praise the Herald for expanding its investigative team with the Nippert hire. It's worth noting that Harkanwal Singh, their data journalist, also works in the investigative team.
-
In the first moment of downtime I've had since the election campaign I thought I'd go back through my files and check on these stories that apparently I hadn't been writing about over the past 8 years because of my abject failure as a journalist.
Government Minister's feeding information to Slater - wrote about it (still am in fact)
Threats made against Ministerial services employee Simon Pleasants - wrote about it
Judith Collins and Oravida - wrote (lots) about it
SIS release to Slater - wrote about it (got summonsed by the IGIS because of it)
Lusk's candidates college - wrote about it
Who was told what and when about the Donghua Liu dump - wrote about it
POAL links to Slater - wrote about itI could go on but the point I'm trying to make is any suggestions this stuff wasn't written about is malarkey of the highest order. I'm not dissing Hager's book. It had some very valuable material in it and shone some light into some dark places. But a lot of its impact was that it collected events from over a period of five to six years and gathered them in one place. That gave it some real punch. The stories that I, and others, wrote happened individually and were (I suspect) passed over as being a bit beltway and of limited interest.
Judging by some of the opinions I've seen exhorted here I realise I'm unlikely to change your minds. But some of the views expressed are sweeping generalisations, if not factually inconsistent, and I thought it only fair I post a response.
I'm now going to have some time off and make a dent in the 18 days worth of overtime I racked up in the last 5 weeks. Enjoy the rest of the debate and best wishes to you all. (and that even includes those of you who see me as an evil tool of the corporate media and a manipulator of the public agenda)
Chur
-
Why isn't it the voters or the people of New Zealand that failed?
I don't see it as an issue of agency or responsibility in a philosophical sense. Even if it's voters who refused to be persuaded, I think the media still ought to worry that they were powerless to persuade; and if they don't have that power, then they have no leverage to hold those in power accountable - and we ought to worry about that.
Maybe a rephrasing: Media isn't (necessarily) responsible for the failure, but they are responsible for making it work again, because it's their raison d'etre.
maybe it's people like us and what we see as being "correct" who are ... wrong?
But nobody is saying that dirty politics is anything but dirty. It's nearly universally decried as unethical behaviour - the only response has been "that's the way politics is". That's a fundamentally toxic and corrosive idea which we ought to fight - even if the election proved it's a popularly held opinion.
And yeah, I accept that voters deciding Key should remain in power despite dirty politics is a totes legit outcome. But does that mean that Key should not have to answer any questions about Ede? That Collins should (almost) stay a minister? That Katherine Rich should stay on the HPA?
And that the media should be okay with all these things, because Key is Very Popular?
-
Rachael, in reply to
Agreed on your description Russell. This is beyond a joke. Does Jordan Williams still have a practising certificate? Surely the Law Society must be interested. I heard that a complaint has been made about his attitude to women demonstrated by that delightful exchange with Whaleoil dumped by Rawshark before the election.
-
CJM, in reply to
But why? Why isn’t it the voters or the people of New Zealand that failed? After all, they were given chapter and verse of the allegations Hager (and Greenwald and Snowden) raised. The media pounded those responsible (well, most of them) for days and days on end and showed the results on TV/in the papers/on the radio. And 48% of those who voted shrugged and said “meh” – with more people voting this time than did 3 years ago. So, just who “failed” here?
Yes but I continue to meet people who use combinations of the MSM, a little Herald here, a little Hosking there, a smidge of Leighton Smith, a draft of RNZ on the way home and then a splash of TVNZ News. They heard about the book, sure, but nowhere in any of those channels they consumed were the specific cases presented by Hager explicitly reported, i.e. verbatim.
The MSM framed it all in the model sketched out by Key's team. It's all a 'smear'. So the people who didn't/won't read the book think they know about it because there's old David Farrar popping up on The Panel as usual and here's Katherine Rich doing the icy Hitchcock blonde routine and not being pinned down in a TV studio to be interviewed and ol' Jason Ede was still down the hall from JK so, you know, how bad could it all really be? 'Isn't it just a bunch of naughty boys and girls and don't all the parties do it?'
It wasn't until fairly late in the piece that some of the specific misogyny and true deviousness was presented in the popular press with the Sunday Star-Times piece by Nippert about Hotchin. When that came out quite a few people I knew were horrified at what had actually happened as reported by Hager.
Collins was gone, great, but the spin was around 'clearing her name' (wonder how that's going by the way?) and her last chance being up.Much the same applied to Greenwald/Snowden. The morning after on RNZ Katherine Ryan hacked away awfully on the phantom 'Cortex' story completely missing the 'Speargun' operation that was EXPLICITLY revealed and stated by Snowden the day before. OK, so maybe 9-noon is an old fashioned show that doesn't want peoples brains rocked by anything too serious but that days Herald, and that days TV news did not do "chapter and verse" reporting on that story. Many people came away more confused, more irritated, more likely to disengage. Much of the "Meh" comes directly from the choices the MSM make in the collation, presentation and dissemination of political news.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
One of the better things from his newly-approved journo status is that he’ll have to declare his sources by name, not ‘a party insider’ or a ‘reliable informant’.
No, as a "journalist", he is entitled to protect confidentiality if he can show it's in the public interest. The judge further ruled, in Slater/Blomfield, that protection of sources in this matter was not in the public interest, and ordered disclosure in this matter only
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Why not (I don’t know), the Police, who always seem so reluctant to get involved in anything that involves politics?
I think there's a bloody good reason for that reluctance, and although I'd agree there's been a few occasions when they've been evidence of criminality and have still been reluctant to investigate, let alone prosecute, I generally think the Police should remain reluctant to involve themselves in such matters.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.