David Shearer has denied a claim that he shout out while David Cunliffe spoke at the GCSB protest meeting on Thursday night, but the claim has been corroborated by a blogger who was also at the meeting.
Some at The Standard are upset about a story on this on 3 News last night, and on online: Cunliffe takes mic at anti-GCSB meeting
There was indignation at The Standard in comments after this was broadcast, and blog manager Lynn Prentice (lprent) has posted Lazy Jono on 3 News invents a story – blasting reporter Jono Hutchison but confirming that the story was in fact accurate.
Ironically lprent confirms the story was fundamentally correct, contradicting doubts raised and demands of an apology by some commenters – and contradicting a denial by Shearer in the news item..
The item is about how David Cunliffe got up and answered a question from the floor with confidence and aplomb – it may have been a pre-prepared speech – while David Shearer looked hesitant and bewildered from the back of the hall.
The contrast in body language alone was graphical.
This was shown graphically on the Live Stream and was discussed on Twitter amongst journalists and at the Standard as a stand out part of the meeting.
It was a significant story in the current context of the state of Labour – and is more likely to influence what happens on the political scene than the anti-GCSB Bill protest.
The story included a reference to a comment from Jenny at The Standard,
David Shearer corrects Cunliffe, (and others). Angrilly shouting out, “We will be having a review.”
(Maybe someone could enhance the audio to catch this exchange?)
Some of the Standardistas questioned Jenny on her claim.
Te Reo Putake: “How do you know it was Shearer, Jenny? How do you know he was angry? Why is repeating Cunliffe’s words a correction? Nah, I call bullshit.”
Weka: “Were you there Jenny? Are sure it was Shearer? It seems unlikely.”
And after the news item the questioning ramped up:
Karol: “Sheaerer denies it – tonight on 3 news where your comment here was quoted – how to spread false rumours…..?”
gobsmacked: “So in its entirety, this was … (drum roll) … a story about one person getting something wrong on the internet. And – that’s it.”
weka: “Jenny, front up with some evidence that Shearer said what you said he did, or apologise to everyone who made that meeting so awesome and didn’t deserve to have it pissed on by the likes of you.”
Te Reo Putake: “Jebus! Jenny owes David Shearer an apology, big time. No doubt she’ll be contacting 3News ASAP to put them right. But, lordie, how lazy is Jono Hutchison? What a doofus.”
Karol: “3 News should apologise for cherry picking Jenny’s comment and ignoring all the subsequent comments saying Shearer can’t be heard yelling anything out.”
But lprent comes to the rescue, inadvertently. His post is scathing of Hutchison and the news item:
I’m always appalled by the difference between what political reporters report compared to what I see at political events. The political reporting from last year’s Labour conference being a good case in point. It often looks to me as oversized egos trying to invent the news rather than simply reporting it.
Jono Hutchinson of 3 News is merely the latest. Normally I don’t comment all that much on such antics. I just view it as silly people being caught up in the mystique of emulating fine ethics of the hacks from the News of the World.
However I’m rather irritated with Jono Hutchinson. He ran a story that deliberately cherry picked a single comment from this site. Out of the stream of comments from people at the meeting he selected a comment to provide a angle rather than accurately reflect what was on the site.
And lprent ran a post that cherry picked one minor point out of a significant and topical story.
Then lprent went on the actually confirm that Jenny’s comment reflected what actually happened at the meeting.
I saw David Shearer in profile shout out the Labour party stance that there would be a review and if Jenny in her *comment* thinks that was “angry” then she is completely mistaken.
That just looked to me like David Shearer shouting out over the crowd in support of David Cunliffe’s statement.
lprent also saw Shearer shout out, confirming Jenny’s claim. Jenny saw it as angry, lprent, but that’s a matter of different perceptions, the fact is that lprent has confirmed that Shearer shouted out.
But Shearer denied it – on the 3 News item.
Hutchison: Is that correct?
Shearer: No. He said there was going to be a review himself.
So who is correct – Jenny and lprent? Or Shearer?
There are more ironies. lprent:
It was from a commentator who is not exactly known to be a great supporter of the Labour party, expressing her opinion in a comment.
There are many at The Standard who are not exactly great supporters of the Labour Party and there are barely any supporters of David Shearer – so it’s odd they are leaping in to support him here, The Standard usually savages Shearer.
And lprent himself is not exactly a great supporter of the Labour Party, he is on record as saying he will vote for the Greens next election.
Another lprent inaccuracy:
David Cunliffe was seated at the *front* of the hall, probably not aware of David Shearer at the back of the hall stood up, and so he took the mike. He expressed the Labour party stance and then expressed his own view, clearly stating it as his own.
Cunliffe actually said:
And based upon what we have heard tonight, I personally, and I’m sure my caucus colleagues, would be of the view that this legislation must not, will not and cannot stand.
Cunliffe clearly assumes the views of his caucus colleagues, which includes David Shearer.
lprent then launches into a typical rant.
Now as people who know this site are aware, I get quite *irritated* when people make dumbarse stories about it. Most of the reporters who lurk around the comments here just use the opinions from comments here as background.
That is safe because this is a public forum for a lot of quite widely varying opinions and viewpoints with differing levels of accuracy. We like to provide a public forum for people to argue those differences with some of our authors posts providing starting opinions. It really isn’t there to provide journo’s with a shortage of time to find stories to report on.
But if journos are planning to use this site as a source then it behoves you to report accurately and in the context of all of the opinions. Cherry picking single opinions to just make a story or just inventing one is quite inadvisable.
It is likely to result in some of us (especially me) unkindly returning the favour and expressing our opinion on the journo or person doing it. While it probably helps raise their internet profile as we exhaustively opine on their inadequacies. But maybe not a way that would be appreciated…
lprent has actually confirmed the general accuracy of Hutchison’s story, especially in relation to what lprent is griping about.
And one comment is worth reporting: But if journos are planning to use this site as a source then it behoves you to report accurately and in the context of all of the opinions.
There are some good comments and some good posts at The Standard, but “report accurately” is not what the blog is mostly known for. lprent has been shown to be woefully inaccurate, in the post referred to here, and he has made false claims about me, as have many Standard commenters.
Journos should be very cautious about The Standard as a source.
But lprent has confirmed that Hutchison chose one of the more accurate comments, from Jenny, amongst the uninformed accusations directed at her. And someone can be heard shouting during and immediately after Cunliffe spoke.
Shearer has denied shouting out. It’s hard to understand why.