Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to stephen clover,
Another comparison that springs to mind is David Benson-Pope. He was in the wrong, was found to have "misled" (or whatever euphemism we prefer) and had to go.
Back then, people like Sean Plunkett thought their job was to hold the Minister to account. He doesn't seem to think so now.
-
It probably won't generate as many headlines as the Collins story, but one of the jaw-droppers from the Espiner/Key interview was the PM (Minister for SIS) revealing/claiming that he doesn't trouble himself - his 'desk" - with OIA requests about the SIS. How very Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps his staff just get out the signature machine used for birthday cards and the like.
-
Credit to Guyon Espiner for doing his job on Morning Report.
Key was reciting his prepared non-responses ("at the end of the day, rugby!" ...) and for once they weren't allowed to pass. He slipped in the Keith Ng = Cameron Slater comparison again, just for good measure (implied, not named). Yuk.
-
Monday morning should be the real test of (broadcast) media indifference, interest or just basic competence. Key does the rounds, and while you can write Hosking's script already, some of the PM's other interviewers might make an effort. Last week they had the excuse of not having had time to read it - that's gone.
If just one of them could penetrate his breakfast honey-waffle with a simple question: ("Hang on, what does that actually mean? Specifically?"), that would be a start.
-
Mike Hosking is probably still in the lead, but today the 'Herald on Sunday' editorial makes a valiant effort to compete for his crown:
The past few weeks have been marked by an unedifying chant, a cheap racial joke and a book that attempts to smear Key by association with an unsavoury blogger.
Yes, really.
-
The Herald, in the shell of the nut ...
"Slater receives death threats", but ...
"Hager claims" ...
-
And on TV3's "The Nation", Cameron Slater accidentally incriminates Judith Collins, confirming her "leak" and contradicting her earlier denials.
That's the lead story, right there.
-
For the Watergate comparisons to work, we'll need ...
- a newspaper proprietor and a strong editor who are committed to investigative journalism
- members of the governing party who see what is wrong and break ranks to speak out
- independent legal authorities who put the law above politics, even if it means getting fired by political masters
We certainly don't have the first two (yet), the third remains to be seen.
And Nixon got 61% of the vote after Watergate.
-
I would have thought it was basic professional standards for Radio NZ to treat Jordan Williams as a combatant, not a commentator. I don't believe that he and his like should be "banned", they should be challenged. Vigorously. By Mary Wilson at five, not cuddly Jim at four.
When the Hollow Men came out, Michael Bassett (on the Panel with Jim Mora, alas) likened Hager to David Irving - specifically and directly. It was disgusting to hear.
He too was not challenged. Treating guests as chatty chums is Panelitis at its worst. Confrontation is seen as the greatest sin - far worse than falsehood.
-
In the Herald's story on Hager's book (current version online) I counted a total of 14 careful caveats ("he claims ..." "according to ..." etc).
I've no problem with this new reluctance at the Herald to report somebody's claims as facts. But I do wonder why it went missing in the recent stories on David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu.