I just had a weird satirical experience.
I read this at The Civilian: Labour proposes repeal of National Government
And straight afterwards read this: What Rough Beast? The Political Meaning of Aaron Gilmore’s Fall
All posts tagged Chris Trotter
Labour spooked, supporters spitting
When Labour launched their NZ Power policy last week they were focussed on promoting prepared PR – the “fairness” of lower power prices for “hard working New Zealanders” and “real businesses”.
They seemed oblivious to the possible effects of their announcement on the financial markets, as this twitter exchange suggests:
H du Plessis-Allan
@hdpaNEWS 18 Apr
Contact’s share price is down 3% after Labour/ Greens announced power regulation plans. If it affects MRP similarly, it’s less $ for us all.Grant Robertson
@grantrobertson1
@hdpaNEWS its actually lower power prices for us all, which is more money in your pocket, which gets spent elsewhere in the economy.
Or they were diverting and denying. They appeared to be playing politics and ignoring warnings. On Sunday Grant Robertson again:
Grant Robertson @grantrobertson1 20 Apr
@stevenljoyce this policy really has you spooked doesn’t it Steven. lol
But three days later, after a number of financial experts had severely questioned the possible effects and threatened the credibility of Labour’s policy, it looks like they are the ones who are spooked.
Grant Robertson is fronting the damage control because David Shearer left on an overseas tour just after the policy announcement.
Labour won’t intervene in any other market, says Roberston
Labour Party deputy leader Grant Robertson has moved to try and reassure financial markets that its sudden lurch to favour central planning in the electricity industry is one-off.
In a statement attacking Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce, Robertson says: “Labour makes no apology for stepping in to fix problems in the electricity sector. But this is not a signal that Labour is going to intervene elsewhere in the economy.
“As we said on the day we launched NZ Power, we have no plans to intervene in any other markets.”
That point was buried in the detail of last week’s announcements by the Labour and Green parties.
And it was either deliberately or negligently ignored by Labour in their promotion of their policy, until nearly a week after the policy announcement.
But the damage due perceptions of Labour’s economic recklessness has been done. The all important centre of the voting spectrum have had their initial suspicions confirmed – Labour have acted like financial misfits.
And it gets worse for Labour. While trying to limit damage to the centre they have riled the left. Activists lauded the lurch towards socialism when NZ Power was announced. For the first time since Shearer became leader
Chris Trotter has posted in response to Robertson with “Hey, Julian! – We Are NOT Pleased!” Grant Robertson Calls Off Labour’s Assault On Neoliberalism at The Daily Blog.
WELL, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG, did it? Exactly one week after jolting thousands of New Zealanders into reconsidering a vote for Labour, Grant Robertson, the acting Leader of the Opposition, issued the above statement – unforgivably surrendering all the gains his party had made.
That Grant Robertson turned out to be the author of this despicable document surprises me not at all.
With a little help from his spin-doctor, Julian Robbins, Labour’s Deputy-Leader composed and issued a media release that effectively runs up the white flag on Labour’s all-too-brief foray into heady world of radical policy-making.
I say ‘white flag’ because Grant’s statement is not just a deferential promise not to play the wicked socialist larrikin in any more of New Zealand’s industrial sectors, but a sotto voce reassurance that even Labour’s energy policy is unlikely to survive the process of lifting certain key Labour bottoms from the Opposition to the Treasury benches.
High power prices aren’t the only thing hurting New Zealand families, Grant. By ruling out intervention “elsewhere in the economy”, you have betrayed not only your party and its supporters, but the electoral victory which, thanks to the political energy unleashed by Energising New Zealand, had been yours for the taking.
Trotter was initially ecstatic about Labour’s NZ Power policy, and flip flopped with his change of heart about David Shearer (see Okay! Okay! I surrender. Shearer Stays).
Now Trotter is flipping his lid. And so are others, as the first comment on his post demonstrates:
Utterly Disillusioned says:
OH Effing soding unprintable reaction! Just when I had vague hopes that the pseudo-left MIGHT have got its head out of its butt they manage to screw themselves, AND so many of their supporters, over.
Didn’t the utterly hysterical rightist reaction show these people ANYTHING! Such a reaction indicates decent policy. Guess what? Joyce and Key were rattled. Thus….DO MORE OF IT! BUT NO! Lets NOT! SOB!
Clearly they either secretly don’t want to be the government or are actually too politically inept and stupid to be granted the privilege.
Most of the rest of the comments there express dismay, disdain and despair.
It wasn’t surprising that Labour’s NZ Power announcement resulted in anger from the right and scathing criticism from much of the financial sector.
There was suspicion about motives and scepticism about policy from the centre.
Initially the left applauded – or some of the left, there was also some caution from the centre left:
Giovanni says:
The thought that maybe you were a bit hasty in lauding the policy had crossed some minds.
And now the left of the left are spitting.
NZ Power showed signs of being doomed to being a debacle from the moment Shearer announced they would be announcing a grand power plan. Labour now face serious damage control, and their leader is missing in action – see Where’s Norman and Shearer?
Grant Robertson has recently raised doubts about his “leader-in-waiting” credentials. He is now left handling what looks like a lemon, and even Labour’s core supporters have gone sour.
Robertson’s mettle will be tested. This will take much more management than muttering media mumbo jumbo.
But his first tweet today isn’t encouraging:
Grant Robertson
@grantrobertson1More evidence that cost of living is causing major problems. Time to lower power prices
La-la-la-la-la won’t cut it Grant. You have to rise to the occasion or you will be roasted.
Posted by Pete George on April 26, 2013
http://yournz.org/2013/04/26/labour-spooked-supporters-spitting/
“Labour’s three factions” and talk of coups
Last week Chris Trotter alluded to three Labour factions in a satirical post at The Daily Blog – Lies, Damned Lies and Imagined Conversations.
“So, now the Labour caucus is divided into three, roughly equal groups, Goff’s and King’s rear-guard of has-beens and Beagle Boys – with Mr Mumbles as their figurehead. David’s loyal ten, and Robertson’s cast of the young and the restless. You must have at least one of the other factions, plus your own, to mount a successful coup.”
‘Eddie’ at The Standard has expanded on this theme in a post at The Standard – Labour’s Three Factions. Eddie knows about coups, he was a participant in the blog side of the supposed Cunliffe conference coup last November.
Broadly speaking though, Labour’s three factions are as follows:
The Right
David Shearer (leader)
Phil Goff
Annette King
David Parker
Clayton Cosgrove
Shane Jones
Damien O’Connor
Kris Fa’afoi
Ross Robertson(total 9)
Within this faction is most of Labour’s experience, and it shows. While only a small minority in caucus, these guys know how to organise, scare, and run a solid internal political game. But while they’re good at the internal game, they’re completely shit at national politics as the last four years has shown.
Goff, King, and Cosgrove are the core, and they’re currently running the show. Fa’afoi seems an odd fit here, much newer and younger than the others; it could be because he was taken under King’s wing.
The Right hold five front bench positions.
The Left
David Cunliffe (leader)
Nanaia Mahuta
Louisa Wall
Sue Moroney
Su’a William Sio
Lianne Dalziel
Parekura Horomia
Rajen Prasad
Rino Tirikatene
Carol Beaumont
Raymond Huo
Moana Mackey
Iain Lees-Galloway
Andrew LittleThis is the largest and most diverse faction. You’ll find most of caucus’ Maori and women here. They haven’t done well with organising internally, and it shows because they’re currently out in the cold. But a lot of members believe this is real Labour – there is not a single former parliamentary staffer in these ranks.
Andrew Little is a bit of wild card here, while his politics are firmly left you can’t count him on him voting for any one particular faction. The Left hold no front bench positions.
(total 14)
The Careerist Left
Grant Robertson (leader)
Chris Hipkins
Jacinda Ardern
Phil Twyford
Clare Curran
Maryan Street
David Clark
Trevor Mallard
Darien Fenton
Megan Woods
Ruth Dyson(total 11)
Of the 11 MPs in the Careerist Left, 7 are former parliamentary staffers. This group has some good people but there’s a strong thread of personal advancement running through it, which is why they’ve brokered a deal with the Right.
Robertson is wary of the ‘Left’ faction, because he doesn’t think he’ll do as well out of a deal with Cunliffe.
Many of his backers have made the same decision, and they’ve been duly rewarded in the reshuffle. Mallard and Dyson are in this faction by accident – they simply don’t like Cunliffe.
Street is an odd fit with this faction, and no one I’ve talked to can explain what she’s doing there.
None of the factions by themselves have the numbers to control caucus, which is why the Right has built an alliance with Careerist Left. That’s who’s in charge now.
Eddie’s post has more detail – there is likely to be a lot of discussion on this at The Standard so keep a watch there, it has already started.
While open to debate this is very interesting – especially as it has been claimed vehemently at The Standard in the past that Eddie is just one individual author expressing his opinion. Like…
As for the Left faction, you may be wondering why they failed to trigger a leadership vote in February when their faction had one more vote than they needed.
It was simple bluffing. Moana Mackey and Iain Lees-Galloway voted Shearer because they thought he had the votes, and quite sensibly didn’t want to be punished by the Right – though it doesn’t look like it did either of them any good in the reshuffle.
How would an individual blogger at The Standard know exactly who voted for whom in a supposedly secret ballot? Note that it has been reported that Labour Whip Chris Hipkins was added to the secret ballot vote counting brigade ath the last minute.
Why has first Chris Trotter and then ‘Eddie’ trotted out this Labour faction speculation? It could be that Trotter’s post prompted Eddie to expand on the theme.
It may or may not be a coincident this is happening just after another major Shearer embarrassment for Labour.
Both Trotter and Eddie support Cunliffe replacing Shearer as party leader.
Is this an attempt at stirring up another coup attempt? Or just good healthy discussion of Labour’s dirty linen in public?
Keywords: popcorn, The Standard
Posted by Pete George on March 25, 2013
http://yournz.org/2013/03/25/labours-three-factions-and-talk-of-coups/
Trotter versus Marwick
Following on fronm the previous post, there’s been some discussion on Trotter’s blog Bowalley between him and NewsTalk ZB chief political reporter Felix Marwick - from Running Dogs:
Felix Marwick said…
“Even from the Media Table, the animosity directed towards caucus members who spoke in favour of the rank-and-file’s resolutions (the most effective of whom, by far, was Lianne Dalziel) was unmistakeable.”
Really Chris?
I recall us being surprised (and for news purposes) quite happy that MPs and delegates were expressing the views that they were. Generally we’ve been excluded from such debates in the past.
I certainly don’t remember any of my colleagues expressing animosity at those that were critical of the hierarchy.
I do, however, recall you going and high fiving with delegates when the 40% caucus vote remit was passed. I also recall you telling a political editor to “get f**ked” when they joked that perhaps the remit should have had support of 60% of the conference.
And I do wonder how it’s consistent that the Shearer camp, which had been derided at the time by its critics inept and incompetent, suddenly became Machiavellian enough to co-opt the entire press gallery to their cause?
For the record; I do not give a flying bollock as to who leads the Labour Party. I, unlike you, am not a player in that game.
Felix Marwick
Chief Political Reporter
Newstalk ZB
Chris Trotter said…
Sorry Felix – badly worded.
I meant that the animosity was clearly visible from the media table which was quite a long way from some of the bitterest speeches.
And, yeah, I did speak harshly to Brent. I was really angry – and just didn’t get the joke. I’ll apologise personally the next time I run into him.
You have to remember I was a Labour Party man long before I was a political columnist – and although I haven’t been a member for more than 20 years, I was still disgusted at the way the caucus responded to the rank-and-file’s assertion of their rights.
Obviously there are different views on how things happened. Some were observers, some seem to have become quite agitated.
Posted by Pete George on March 1, 2013
http://yournz.org/2013/03/01/trotter-versus-marwick/
Curran responds to Trotter – devoid of substance
Chris Trotter fired a broadside at Labour MPs today over their behaviour at the Labour conference in November in a column Dishing out rewards to hungry enforcers.
I’m told there were six of them, and that they hunted as a pack. Their prey?
Delegates who had voted the wrong way.
Moving through the excited crowds at the Ellerslie Conference Centre last November, an angry group of Labour MPs was seen taking dissidents aside and telling them, in no uncertain terms, which way was up.
Leading the pack was Labour’s employment relations spokeswoman, Darien Fenton, and her grim lieutenant, Dunedin South MP Clare Curran.
No surprises there. Ms Fenton and Ms Curran were among the caucus members most alarmed by the Labour Party rank-and-files’ sudden outbreak of democratic distemper. The other members of the pack, however, came as a surprise.
On February 25, Mr Shearer’s new lineup is announced. The Pack are well rewarded. Ms Fenton and Ms Curran both rise two places in the pecking order, while Mr Twyford goes up three to take a seat on the front bench.
There were accusations against other Labour MPs as well, but that’s a bigger story.
Channel 9 in Dunedin asked Clare Curran about her role in this in Nightly interview: Clare Curran(video) - transcript.
Rebecca Meek:
Chris Trotter published a scathing attack against a group of Labour MPs in the ODT today, calling them a group of angry attack dogs. He implied a group of Labour MPs were berating members of the party who were not being faithful to the current leader David Shearer.
To fill in the gaps and explain what’s been going on is Labour’s MP for Dunedin South Clare Curran.
Now you’ve been referred to as a grim lieutenant in today’s ODT, and part of a group of angry attack dogs, what’s your response to that?
Clare Curran:
Well, I’ve known Chris Trotter for quite a long time, and I think he’s a great writer, ah, I think he might be, um, better at writing fiction these days, ah, and, but I think he’s also a bit like a dog with a bone, and he tends to live in the past a bit in his writing, and, ah he also has hasn’t been a member of the Labour Party for a very long time, but he likes to give us the benefit of his very strong views, so I guess that’s what I’ve got to say I mean, um, you know I that’s not the way I um saw it, and ah you know we had a great conference, and we’ve we’re a united party moving forward.
After spending most of a ramble trying to discredit Trotter she makes a non specific denial “I mean, um, you know I that’s not the way I um saw it” and then either paints a rather creative picture of “a great conference” and then is in total denial or total PR mode claiming “we’ve we’re a united party moving forward“. Charles Chauvel, Chris Trotter and many others have very contrasting views of a party that is divided and toxic.
And I’ve heard from different sources (other than Trotter) that Clare Curran has been intimidating party members – I blogged about some in Curran needs to answer gagging accusations:
My friends were heavied in an attempt to intimidate me to stop posting during the leadership contest between Shearer and Cunliffe. Clearly someone in Wellington didn’t like me saying their pony was a rightwing puppet who couldn’t lead a party to save himself. Despite me only stating the obvious, it spurred a pretty awful and nasty intimidation campaign. They knew the people being threatened weren’t me, but they knew too that doing that to my friends would quieten me. How shitty North-Korean is that?
So far it’s been CV, millsy, Peter Wilson, and me – that I know of – but who knows who else has been leaned on to shut up?
We’re not like the disgrace of an MP who has hounded CV into silence because she can’t handle honest criticis…
I have the evidence, as do others. It exists, and if the behaviour doesn’t stop, it may just come out.
The MP in question also hails from Dunedin. In my view she has simply lost the plot.
This is an actual problem. There was a threat of “outing” by a MP that came up during the lobbying at conference.
The lobbying at the conference which is where this round of it seemed to have started was pretty intense and I’ve had quite a four people independently describing it to me.
I now know the facts, via a private source, but I still don’t know why the Standard won’t publish the full story, because it really is appalling behaviour by a half witted bully of an MP.
But you should know that this incident leaves me very angry indeed and I firmly believe the MP concerned should be de-selected and expelled from the party.
There have been more descriptions and accusations since. Some of these comments are from unknown identities, some are from identified party members.
And to shut down dissent in the party seems to be continuing. IrishBill commented on Monday:
I should probably mention that she’s still trying to get the National council to put rules in place for members who blog and censures for those who are deemed to have blogged inappropriately.
Curran has certainly not answered criticism with “I mean, um, you know I that’s not the way I um saw it“.
UPDATE: a relevant comment from Trotter’s Bowalley blog:
Chris Trotter said…
You have to remember I was a Labour Party man long before I was a political columnist – and although I haven’t been a member for more than 20 years, I was still disgusted at the way the caucus responded to the rank-and-file’s assertion of their rights.
Posted by Pete George on March 1, 2013
http://yournz.org/2013/03/01/curran-responds-to-trotter-devoid-of-substance/
Cunliffe “is going nowhere”
Commenting on Labour in Charge of the limp brigade Chris Trotter coments on the departure of Charles Chauvel and speculates on David Cunliffe:
Charles Chauvel, “Champagne Charlie”, that wilful roisterer whose liberal disposition and utterly brilliant legal mind promised a Labour Attorney-General and Justice minister of rare ability and enduring achievement, is merely the latest victim of a Labour caucus which, increasingly, is distinguished by nothing other than its dreary mediocrity.
I ask myself: “With Champagne Charlie gone, can the talented Mr Cunliffe be far behind?”
I asked Greg Presland about this on Kiwiblog and he responded:
DC is really enjoying his time being the MP for New Lynn and is working on some long term local campaigns. He is going nowhere.
Trotter is obviously pondering, and Presland has previously acknowledged he’s on Cunliffe’s New Lynn electorate committee so is going to be much closer to what is actually happening there. I’ve got no reason to doubt his confidence that Cunliffe “is going nowhere” as per Chauvel – and another reliable source has indicated similarly.
This is good for Labour. Despite all the talk of internal divisions – and there’s some validity to that – Labour badly needs to retain MPs of Cunliffe’s ability and experience (it’s hard to see a more valuable MP for Labour at the moment if caucus is able to work together on a common cause).
The irony is that Labour without Shearer would be a party with a different leader, but Labour without Cunliffe would be severely weakened.
Posted by Pete George on February 22, 2013
http://yournz.org/2013/02/22/cunliffe-is-going-nowhere/
The asset sales mandate, and how the Green Machine may steamroll Labour
Chris Trotter snorts at the no-mandate anti asset sale argument in Mandate given at last election.
Any political party racking up such a total is entitled to claim a very strong electoral mandate for all its policies.
National’s claim to a specific mandate for its asset sales programme is, accordingly, very strong. The policy was announced nearly a year before the election and was subjected to the intense scrutiny of not only the parliamentary opposition, but also the news media and a broad cross-section of civil society.
If Prime Minister John Key’s Government doesn’t have a mandate to proceed with its privatisation policy, the word no longer has any political meaning.
Whale Oil has highlighted this in Trotter on the intellectual dishonesty of the asset sales petition.
Despite all that there are some people who believe that an electoral mandate should be gazumped by a referendum that had public monies poured into it by the Green party in order to buy signatures. There are many, many referenda that have been put forward that have been ignored by politicians. Why should this one be any different.
I doubt that the Green and Labour strategists give a toss about mandates.
The hijacking of the referendum process is a cynical misuse of taxpayer money to extend election campaiging through the duration of the term.
They will know the referendum won’t stop National’s MOM policy from progressing (as much as the financial situation allows it). My guess is that they plan to use the referndum as a springboard into election year campaigning. Or at least that’s the Green strategy, Labour may be simply floundering along following the Green lead.
This raises another issue. If a Labour-Green government takes over next term even if as expected Greens have less MPs their far superior political nous is likley to put them in a very strong position. It will start in the coalitiion negotiations, where Labour will be desperate to get back into power. But Greens, while obviously keen to at last make it into Government, may be in a formidable “take us or leave it” position.
Provided Greens at least maintain current levels of support and current political smarts no matter the balance of MPs is expect a Labour-Green government to be strongly influenced and possible dominated by the Greens.
Posted by Pete George on January 11, 2013
http://yournz.org/2013/01/11/the-asset-sales-mandate-and-how-the-green-machine-may-steamroll-labour/
‘The Standard’ and ‘the MSM’
The Standard is a precious part of the political blogosphere, being by far the largest left wing forum in New Zealand. It provides a valuable outlet for many people and is a useful insight into the thinking of some parts of the political spectrum and the parties of the left.
But The Standard has another sort of prevalent preciousness. The authors and moderators can be oversensitive to anyone referring to ‘The Standard’ and anyone linking The Standard with the Labour Party. There’s an fresh example of this in today’s Open Mic when ‘Jenny’ commented:
A National Government led New Zealand has voted with the majority of the world in Legitimising the Palestinian cause.
Why has the Labour Leader been silent on this issue?
So far a fair question. Then…
Why when it has been carried in virtually every other media have there been no posts from The Standard authors on this historic UN vote?
Are the writers for The Standard and the Labour Party so sectarian that they won’t give credit to the government even when it is due?
Is this the reason for The Standard’s silence on this historic event?
If so then it shows why Labour is losing the people’s support. This sort of sectarian pettiness is just boring to most people.
A few generalisations for sure, but there are also clear references to “The Standard authors “, and “the writers for The Standard and the Labour Party” differentiates the two entities, it doesn’t speak of them as one. But author ‘karol’ responds with a standard sort of lecture.
Jenny, “The Standard” doesn’t decide to write or not to write on anything. The Standard is not part of the Labour Party. I have not party voted for Labour for a few elections. Each writer chooses what to write about when they have time. There are many pressing issues relevant to left wing NZ’ers.
Of course celebrate the historic decision. You also should refresh you knowledge of the site policies.
That is a fairly standard reprimand, especially pointing to ‘the site policies’.
Attacking the blog site, or attributing a mind to a machine (ie talking about The Standard as if it had an opinion), or trying to imply that the computer that runs the site has some kind of mind control over authors and commentators is not allowed.
Apart from being overly precious and pedantic there is some hypocrisy here, quickly illustrated by karol in a comment on the same thread:
“I almost commented that as well, but haven’t seen any MSM comment on how China voted.”
That’s exactly the same sort of generalisation as “The Standard’s silence “. And in a post yesterday, The political media and the blogs…
- lprent (Standard sysop and chief moderator/humiliator) quotes Chris Trotter:
- “the current behaviour of the “mainstream media” (MSM)”
- “not abandoning the MSM‘
- “That’s when the MSM should really begin to worry.”
- “has crept into the MSM’s coverage of blogs”
- “What if the MSM’s coverage…”
- “some extremely disturbing questions about the credibility and trustworthiness of MSM journalism?” - lprent (Standard sysop and chief moderator/humiliator) says:
- “a carefully constructed fiction of media and the beltway PR”
- “the message that the media reported”.
- “the modern news media in action” - Redlogix (Standard author and moderator) says in the first comment “I wonder exactly what the MSM response will be.”
- karol (Standard author and current complainer) says “it can provide a corrective to the MSM’s abuse of their power”.
That’s just in one post. Plus a number of other commenters freely referred to ‘the media’ without censure.
If The Standard wants to be seen as a prominent player in the new media they will have to get used to be referred to as ‘The Standard’ (and they’re just a small part of a much wider blogosphere and social media).
But if anyone refers to ‘The Standard’, no matter how carefully, the weight of Standard authority jumps on it.
Another comment from lprent in that same posts:
- “You really are a authoritarian loving dork aren’t you….”
Posted by Pete George on December 1, 2012
http://yournz.org/2012/12/01/the-standard-and-the-msm/
Chris Trotter shocker
Chris Trotter has responded to Brian Edwards (The Anonymity Pandemic) and the debate on pseudonyms and MSM versus blogger. He makes some quite remarkable claims in Islands In The Mainstream.
The big problems will only arise when the stories people read on the blogs begin to sharply contradict stories being printed in the newspapers and broadcast over radio and television. That’s when the MSM should really begin to worry.
But if the note of alarm that has crept into the MSM’s coverage of blogs – especially political blogs – over the past few weeks is anything to go by, some of that worrying has already begun.The tone of these attacks leaves little doubt that not only do these political journalists consider bloggers to be unwelcome and illegitimate contributors to the nation’s political discourse, but that nothing would make them happier than to see them tightly regulated and controlled. It’s an attitude that should send a shiver down every New Zealander’s spine.
A genuine “Fourth Estate” would welcome the democratisation of the gathering and distributing of news which the Internet has made possible. That so many MSM journalists have greeted the competitive spur of the blogosphere with a mixture of self-serving patch-protection and outright authoritarianism is cause for considerable concern.
Ah, where’s the authoritarianism? All I’ve seen is some journalists expressing their opinions. Seems like an attack of victimisation.
The recent Labour Party conference demonstrated in the most dramatic fashion the MSM’s capacity to misrepresent and mislead the NZ public.
Yeah, and all the bloggers did was report the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
How many bloggers were there? How many journalists? Drastically outnumbered and still managed to fight the good fight.
Mr Gower’s conspiracy theory…
The one he started via his agents Guyon Espiner, Vernon Small and ‘Eddie’?
Once it becomes clear that those principals have agreed upon an interpretation of events it is extremely hazardous for any political journalist to offer an alternative view
The integrity of how many are being questioned? Can you name names Chris? Unlike bloggers, they aren’t anonymous.
Is this the real explanation for the sudden spate of attacks on the anonymity of these citizen-journalists?
Ah, bloggers are citizen-journos now. I guess those of us writing under our own names aren’t included amongst the comrades.
Has a focus group warned the MSM that the stories it declines to tell – and which are now turning up in blogs – are being believed?
The great focus group conspiracy.
Are more and more of the MSM’s readers, listeners and viewers coming to the conclusion that the Fourth Estate, far from speaking truth to power, has become its willing stenographer?
Are they? Has Chris been checking some focus groups of his own?
If this is true, then the decision by so many active participants in the blogosphere to remain anonymous or write under a pseudonym becomes entirely reasonable. Any system powerful and mendacious enough to suborn the one institution specifically charged with exposing its malfeasance is probably not the sort of system to be openly challenged or taunted by vulnerable individuals using their real names.
No, can’t have any old school journos holding anyone to account, can we.
The day focus groups and their deliberations cease to be confidential is the day bloggers will gladly abandon their pseudonyms and the “pandemic of anonymity” will be over.
And Chris is speaking for all the anonymous bloggers? As soon as the revolution has been won they will reveal themselves in their glory?
And the AB’s at The Standard have picked up on Trotter’s column and are praising it in “Name” journalism & voter dis-engagement:
just saying
29 November 2012 at 5:52 pmA lot of great minds thinking alike. A very relevant and eloquent column form Chris Trotter today:
And…
karol
29 November 2012 at 7:18 pmI’m so glad the Internet still provides a diversity of voices to hold the MSM to account, and hope that it won’t be regulated down to an exceptional minority by banishing the use of pseudonyms…. if it was even possible?
But no one should hold anonymous bloggers to account?
And I’m not aware of any proposals or suggestions to banish the use of pseudonyms. Paranoia piled on the conspiracies now.
And it’s worth noting that The Standard is billing that as the main post of the day.
The Cunliffe camp lost the leadership battle so they switch to the great media war.
Posted by Pete George on November 29, 2012
http://yournz.org/2012/11/29/chris-trotter-shocker/
Labour – Grant Robertson responds
There’s different sides to every story. After Chris Trotter criticism Grant Robertson responds at Red Alert:
For the benefit of Mr Trotter
Posted by Grant Robertson on July 13th, 2012
… Chris is at it again in a column published today. Fair enough, he is a commentator. But his out of context characterization of my recent environment speech needs a response.
He chooses to lift out a phrase from the speech about my view that we need to avoid “uncompromising dogma” in some aspects of environmental policies to somehow be my political catch-cry and extrapolates this in a several paragraph bound to a belief that “business as usual” is the way forward in my political universe. I reject that.
In the speech the statement about ‘uncompromising dogma’ relates to the importance of using evidence and science to back up our environmental policies. I use a particular example of the issue for some green businesses that there is some inside the lab genetic modification that is being unnecessarily limited by our current laws. (Current laws I played a part in creating I might add). Sticking to these rules without evidence and standing in the way of safe science that will promote green growth is to me, uncompromising dogma.
Chris then makes a quantum leap that would make Roger Douglas proud, and says this serves as a ‘brutal warning’ to the Greens about what is required if they want a “spot at the Cabinet table”. What absolute nonsense. What it is, is my opinion. It might challenge some people in the Greens, but I am not in the business of issuing warnings or threats to my friends in the Greens.
Leaping onward, and having blithely ignored the several paragraphs in the speech devoted to National’s appalling stewardship of our environment, Chris comes to the view that I accept a “business as usual” approach to the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact a whole section of the speech is devoted to why the way we have treated the planet for so many generations can not go on, and the importance of a global response.
The whole point of the event that David Cunliffe and I organised was to discuss the importance of taking a different approach that draws together the environment and economic development.
I have had a fair bit of feedback about the speech, and I welcome more. A few negative or questioning comments, but far and away many more people appreciating that Labour is taking environmental issues seriously, agreement that as a country and world we do need to do things differently, and excitement that we are going to use evidence and science and that we will make the economy and environment work together. That’s where I am focused, whatever box Chris wants to try to put me in.
Chris Trotter says:
Thanks for this response, Grant.
The quote from you about “uncompromising dogma” around which my column is assembled was delivered with particular care precisely because it carried an important sub-text (what some call a “dog whistle”) to its largely Labour audience.
You quite rightly alluded to the battle over GE that divided Labour and the Greens in 2002, signalling with your comment that the strong resistance to Green pressures displayed back then would not be lessened in any future coalition.
I was an eye-witness to the full venom of Labour’s response in 2002 and know from personal experience the lengths to which some Labour people will go to silence and/or discredit their opponents.
You will need to give me considerably more evidence than the above that Labour has changed both its policies and its political praxis on matters ecological before I’m convinced that you and your party have become something more than (at best) “reluctant radicals”.
Grant Robertson says:
@Chris. Thank goodness I have you to tell me what I am thinking and unpicking the hidden meaning of my words and tone. I won’t bore the punters with picking over 93, but as I say we have very different perspectives on those events.
Posted by Pete George on July 13, 2012
http://yournz.org/2012/07/13/labour-grant-robertson-responds/
