How religious is your neighbourhood?

NZ Herald has a nifty interactive map that you can drill down into to see how religious your neighbourhood is.

See the oddly (and possibly inaccurately) headlined God and money: Interactive map shows rich suburbs have most atheists.

A Herald interactive map, based on 2013 Census data and the New Zealand Deprivation Index, shows that religious New Zealanders live mainly in poor suburbs, with rich Kiwis increasingly turning their backs on God and religion.

The number of Christians decreased to 1,906,398 (48.9 per cent of people with religious affiliation) from 2,082,942 (55.6 per cent) in 2006.

Zooming into Dunedin and drilling down into my own area I get:

Area Unit – Ravensbourne
Deprivation Index: 5
% No Religion: 52.7
% Christian: 37.1
% Hindu: 1
% Buddhist: 1
% Muslim: 0.5
% Jewish: 0.3
% New Age: 0.8
Total people stated: 1155

It looks like I’m relatively deprived of neighbourhood bible bashers (and quiet believers).

One of the poorer areas of Dunedin:

Area Unit – St Kilda Central
Deprivation Index: 9
% No Religion: 47.3
% Christian: 46.8
% Hindu: 0.4
% Buddhist: 1.1
% Muslim: 0.2
% Jewish: 0.2
% New Age: 0.8
Total people stated: 1578

But this proves the deprivation theory wrong:

Area Unit – Vauxhall
Deprivation Index: 1
% No Religion: 43.7
% Christian: 50.6
% Hindu: 0.6
% Buddhist: 1.3
% Muslim: 0.6
% Jewish: 0.1
% New Age: 0.5
Total people stated: 3699

And also in Invercargill:

Area Unit – Waianiwa
Deprivation Index: 2
% No Religion: 42.2
% Christian: 54.7
% Hindu: 0.5
% Buddhist: 0.2
% Muslim: 0
% Jewish: 0.3
% New Age: 0
Total people stated: 1842

The Herald probably didn’t test their theory south of the Bombay Hills.

Nor in Auckland properly:

Area Unit – Herne Bay
Deprivation Index: 1
% No Religion: 46.8
% Christian: 48.5
% Hindu: 0.8
% Buddhist: 0.9
% Muslim: 0.2
% Jewish: 1
% New Age: 0.3
Total people stated: 2592

Area Unit – Waiata (includes Remuera)
Deprivation Index: 1
% No Religion: 31.6
% Christian: 61.7
% Hindu: 1.2
% Buddhist: 2.2
% Muslim: 0.4
% Jewish: 0.9
% New Age: 0.1
Total people stated: 4068

Majority support anti-ISIS troop deployment

The Government is backed by majority sentiment with the deployment of a small number of troops in Iraq, according to a Herald-Digipoll survey.

On the decision to deploy troops in Iraq:

  • Agree 57%
  • Disagree 34%

(the poll wording was not given)

More men (two thirds) agreed than women (47%).

The poll of 750 eligible voters was taken in the lead-up to Anzac Day when there were arrests in Australia of a group suspected of planning terror attacks for Anzac Day. There was also coverage in New Zealand of Kiwi jihadist Mark Taylor’s YouTube clip urging Islamic State sympathisers here to target Anzac Day celebrations.

Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee said those were possible factors in the poll. He believed it showed people were increasingly realising New Zealand was not isolated from the threat posed by Isis.

The deployment was opposed by Labour and Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman David Shearer said he believed New Zealanders were more evenly split than the poll suggested.

How would Shearer believe he knows better than the poll?

The Herald-DigiPoll survey of 750 eligible voters was taken from April 17-26 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 per cent.

Source: Kiwis back NZ troops’ Iraq role

Intense frustration among his opponents

Intense frustration among John Key’s opponents is nothing new, but it’s likely to be as high as ever after the ponytail issue and a poll seemingly unmoved by it.

A Herald editorial looks at this – Prime Minister needs to reflect on poll carefully

The result of our poll today could suggest voters will forgive any foolish behaviour from this Prime Minister. If the man himself reads the results that way he would be foolish indeed.

He’s not the only one who should reflect on the poll carefully. A grumpy old Winston is improving his ratings while Labour and Andrew Little are missing in action.

In the meantime, the unusually sustained popularity of the PM is causing intense frustration among his opponents, not so much in Parliament but outside it, on websites and in some academic circles where resentment has become extreme.

These people are doing their cause no favours with their seething hatred of a political figure who everyone else knows to be an economic moderate and social liberal. They are not helping Labour’s recovery, still below 30 per cent in this poll, and the Greens remain around 10 per cent.

Intense frustration is rampant at The Standard, where they sneer at my ineffectiveness as they flog a dead pony tail. Like Te Teo Putake’s latest post I Fought the Law.

While Key has damned himself by saying he is NZ’s most casual Prime Minister, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t put the hours in. Being PM is a tough, demanding gig. Doing that job and fighting protracted legal battles to minimise the damage of things he has already admitted doing is going to hobble him. It’s one thing to defend accusations; another thing altogether defending accusations you’ve already admitted are true. Even if he grimly hangs on Key is now being openly laughed at. Not with, at. That’s gotta hurt. And the rest of his caucus knows that, well, weirdos don’t win elections.

Funny to see Standard authors accuse others of being openly laughed at.

No, I think the best thing for Key, and the National Party, is for him to resign and deal with the legal fallout as a private citizen. But he won’t want to do that because he knows, despite his desperate denial that there is a power imbalance in this matter, that if he doesn’t have the power that goes with being Prime Minister there’s every chance the judiciary might treat him just like any other middle aged man who admitted repeatedly playing with the hair of a young woman against her wishes.

And, well, I’m sure we would all agree it would be a terrific shame if Key missed out on a fourth term because he was serving a first term. But it’s possible, it’s possible.

Overplaying their hand has been as prominent as their Labour leader and party have been anonymous.

Expect intense frustration to continue unabated at The Standard and elsewhere on the left. Repeating the same failed attacks is self damaging, and it distracts attention from appearing like a competent alternative.

Key’s biggest promoter is not Crosby Textor, unless they are co-ordinating the repeated foot shooting on the left.

Herald and Whale Oil defend Glucina

NZ Herald and Cameron Slater are unusual allies their support of Rachel Glucina and her handling of the waitress at the centre of John Key’s hair pulling.

And they are fairly lonely in trying to defend what looks like some very shoddy journalism, something Slater usually hammers the Herald for – in this case journalist connections seem to take precedence over consistency.

The Herald had a torrid day on social media yesterday, battered by their handling of the hair pulling issue in Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’ where via PR consultant and Herald gossip columnist Rachel Glucina they dump heavily on the waitress.

This had been promoted by editor Shayne Currie:

Exclusive: In tomorrow’s , meet the waitress at the centre of – and she explains why she went public

Attention was given to the blurred lines between the roles of ‘PR consultant’ and ‘Herald reporter’. There was strong criticism on social media and by other journalists, including suggestions it warranted a Press Council complaint.

Brent Edwards from Radio New Zealand tweeted:

@nzherald have confirmed a breach of journalistic standards in What will it do next?

More in ‘Strong stuff': the media’s role in #ponytailgate

The Herald went onto a somersault mode of damage control.

Herald statement

Shayne Currie, Editor of NZ Herald has released a statement on how the story was reported:

That’s at the bottom of Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’ .

Except that the currently published statement is apparently the fourth and significantly edited version as the Herald desperately and obviously too quickly tried to stem the criticism.

Despite all this Whale Oil seems to be trying to paint the best possible picture of the Herald coverage and Glucina.

Whale Oil’s Face of the Day

While Cameron Slater frequently and strongly criticises the Herald he seems to still have some friendly journalists. Or thinks he does. He has teamed up with Glucina on stories in the past.

The timing, and things get messy

The timing of the hair pulling story has been criticised, but that’s nonsense. So what if someone timed it for maximum attention? That’s hardly uncommon.

Sure it could be awkward for Key to deal with the flak while travelling around the world. But it also gets him out of most of the firing line. By the time he gets back to New Zealand the story will have at least calmed down a bit.

Perhaps the story could have been put out in the news vacuum over Easter. That might have reduced attention. Or it could have festered and grown because there wasn’t much else to be indignant about.

The timing is a non-issue.

While the victim is a victim if unwanted physical attention she is a victim. That isn’t diminished by the way the story plays out.

I think she was unwise using The Daily Blog and Martyn Bradbury as her medium for her revelation. It guaranteed a highly charged partisan reaction before any facts were known or confirmed. It’s a side issue but it’s an issue.

The waitress used Bradbury – but Bradbury has used her too. I hope he warned her about the inevitability that her anonymity wouldn’t last long. I hope he warned her how she would be labelled politically by using him.

It didn’t take the Herald long to out the identity of the waitress and her workplace – see Waitress: ‘I felt NZ should know’.

She has complained about this coverage in detail at The Daily Blog – UPDATE: The Prime Minister and the Waitress Part 2 – Dirty Politics?

She says she was aware of some of the risks but she has been clobbered.

She claims that her employers and Rachel colluded to dupe her into an interview. But retracting something from the media is futile. Especially once it’s been published.

Out of respect for my employers, and what seemed like their genuine concern for my well-being along with the future of their business (a business doing good things which I fully support), they introduced me to Rachel, by name as the employee behind the story, and Rachel said she would put together a statement for us to proof.

As we waited for Rachel to e-mail the draft proof one of my employers read aloud to the other Rachel’s e-mail address. It began… RACHEL.GLUCINA and alarm bells went off. Sounded familiar, and I felt sick to my stomach – more than you’d ever imagine, a feeling I simply could not ignore.

Rachel’s story changed. RAPIDLY. Now she couldn’t possibly supply us with a proof because she would lose her job. She was absolutely acting in her capacity as a journalist for the New Zealand Herald and claimed that my employers had known all along, which they denied.

I made it absolutely clear that all and any comments I had made were given under false pretences, not to mention completely out of context, and questioned whether her supposed story would still be published if I withheld my permission.

Rachel simply responded that she would come back to us and read to us what was to be published, although she had no control over editors and sub-editors, and that she had to get in touch with the Prime Ministers office, and then they quickly ended the conversation. I later contacted my employers reiterating that I revoked any permission to use my photo or comments for any press release, and my disappointment that I had been mislead to such a gross degree whilst having my identity knowingly confirmed with the New Zealand Herald at the same time.

If she’s correct this is a bad look for the Herald. More collateral damage. What the hell were her employers and Glucina up to?

This could get very messy.

When the Prime Minister is involved behaviour has to be carefully considered. He stuffed up.

When the Prime Minister is involved the media and the victim get embroiled as well in what now looks like becoming substantial side issues.

While I think Key’s behaviour was poor it wasn’t dirty. But it’s triggered what could be a bloody big dirty mess.

Fisher defends spying ‘revelations’

Senior journalist David Fisher tries to defend the Herald’s ongoing spying revelations – providing a forum for Nicky Hager – in David Fisher: Spying – does the nation need to know?

This suggests the Herald is sensitive to criticisms. The latest spying on China article from Hager How NZ and US agents plotted to spy on China didn’t actually reveal spying on China, just ‘a plot’ or plans to possible spy on China.

Fisher opens by stating the obvious:

It would be surprising if our intelligence agencies were not spying on China in some way.

‘Spying’ is a bit of a loaded statement. It could mean as little as keeping an eye out for information of interest.

And Fisher acknowledges that it can be done legally.

By law there is a path cleared for the GCSB and SIS to carry out intelligence gathering on foreign states. There are even legal exceptions which would allow the sort of “data link” exploit planned for two Chinese government offices in Auckland, revealed in documents obtained by Edward Snowden.

The law also says such intelligence gathering must be to support the “national security of New Zealand”, the “international relations and well-being of New Zealand” and “the economic well-being of New Zealand”.

He then targets what may be the crux of the issue.

The issue which does arise is our motivations for doing so – and whether those are purely New Zealand’s motivations.

And then homes in on the target of concern.

A National Security Agency document, among other material taken by Snowden, states that the GCSB “continues to be especially helpful in its ability to provide NSA ready access to areas and countries that are difficult for the United States to access”.

In essence, our relationship with China is of use to the US and allows New Zealand to operate as a Trojan Horse – or even Trojan Kiwi – for NSA intelligence gathering efforts.

Five Eyes involves three other countries, the UK, Canada and Australia.

Helping Australia or Canada with their intelligence gathering wouldn’t cause so much concern, but in a co-operative arrangement we could just as easily be helping them as the US.

The Snowden/Hager series of ‘revelations’ appear to be targeting the USA, seeing any ‘intelligence’ involvement with them as bad.

We should certainly be interested in our relationships with the US, with China as with other countries.

I’m not sure that Hager reports are the best way to do this.

New Zealand has its own inquiry to come. United Future Peter Dunne voted for the new GCSB Act secure in the knowledge he had won from Mr Key a regular inquiry into the activities of the security agencies, the first due to begin prior to the end of June 2015.

Presumably the inquiry will see New Zealand talking about the activities of its security agencies.

As a forum, its a good place to answer the question about our Trojan Kiwi spying on China.

Yes this inquiry will be a good place to examine our intelligence relationships and operations (as much as they can be discussed openly).

But Fisher suggests he has a common agenda with Hager with a loaded “Trojan Kiwi spying on China” description. The inquiry should consider much more than one arm of much wider co-operation.

If the nation is making trade-offs, does the nation need to know?

Nations always make trade-offs. It’s sometimes called called diplomacy.

I’d be interested to know if we gain as much as we give in the Five Eyes relationship. Hager and Fisher could do well to consider all the pros and cons. New Zealand may gain significant benefits as well as risk falling out with trading partners.

Otherwise they risk being seen as little more than anti-American.

Slaters threatening O’Sullivan

Cameron Slater, in a highly ironic campaign against Herald journalist, continues to threaten Fran O’Sullivan – while accusing the Herald of Dirty Media and after many attacks on Nicky Hager for revealing private emails.

Yesterday in STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR NZ HERALD MONDAY:

I first thought of Fran O’Sullivan. She’s been writing some odd stuff (different to her usual) in the last few months

You are right, and O’Sullivan got herself caught up in the email trail with Cathy Odgers etc when all that went down and wrote a bizarre column covering her own backside that was highlighted on this very blog. Surely that qualifies as embroiling themselves in matters that they shouldn’t have.

Edit: here is her original piece of butt-covering.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n…

There are plenty more emails that haven’t yet seen the light of day. If she continues her jihad they will.

And in a post today where he attacks O’Sullivan’s appointment in DIRTY MEDIA APPOINTED IN “NEW” ROLE – AS FIRST BROKEN ON WHALEOIL he plays ‘dirty media’ again.

And Slater’s wife joins the attack:

Let us not forget that Saint Nicky Hager kindly chose to leave out of his book all the Herald journalists who regularly were in contact with Whaleoil. He told the public that he felt that they deserved a chance to mend their ways but it also was a public declaration that he now owned them.

How hard would it be to say no to Saint Nicky when he wants a story run when you know that he has the power to destroy your career by revealing that you were involved in so called Dirty Politics?
Even worse imagine if you were someone really important, like I don’t know…Fran perhaps?

Oh baby!

Another threat.

There’s more attacks against O’Sullivan today in:

(I haven’t bothered checking every post put he often uses a blunderbus approach):

And so it goes on. His anti-Herald obsession as usual. Dirty politics as usual.

Who would risk trying to do anything with Slater if he is likely to throw a hissy and throw around threats against you some time later?

NZ ‘right wing’ accused of terrorism

The Standardistas are baffled as to why the people are comatose – see Standard poll reaction – the people are comatose – and then post stuff like this from vto:

Meaning of terrorism: “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

recent terrorist attacks in NZ;

French government on Rainbow Warrior in Auckland 1985 killing Fernando Periera
Unknown blowing up Wellington Trade Union Hall 1982 killing Ernie Abbott
Gunshots fired through Hone Harawira’s electorate office last year.
Unite Union offices attacked last week.

All terrorism

All by the right wing of the political spectrum

No evidence required by the conspiracy theorists. Vto had also posted:

John Key has caused this by sending our troops to fight some of Americas wars.

It was intentional.

This was on a post by Anthony Robins that actual made a fair point – Be afraid. Be very afraid. – the sudden surge in terror warnings when we have very little real terrorism in New Zealand is alarming.

Alongside the alleged uncovering of a terrorist plot in Australia in the weekend there may be some real cause for concern, but media scaring tactics are playing the terrorist game.

But Anthony, isn’t your recent obsession with “From the anonymous editorial” and “Stop right there anonymous editorialist” a bit ironic, given the staunch support The Standard gives to anonymity of it’s authors and commenters?

Ok, bloggers operate under pseudonyms which are different from being anonymous. Except for the likes of ‘Notices and Features’ who often seem to express opinion anonymously. And like this posted under ‘Natwatch':

Geddis spanks Farrar

Over at Pundit Andrew Geddis has a great piece – “Three signs that National knows Simon Bridges did wrong“. Geddis on the third sign, Nat spinster David Farrar running the “beltway issue” deflection, is brilliant in all sorts of ways. Won’t spoil it by quoting, but I think it’s fair to say that it’s a pretty sticky moment for DPF. Read the whole piece at Pundit, but be warned, you will need to disinfect your brain.

Who is the anonymous editorialist behind ‘I think’?

At least all the identities who could contribute to any Herald editorial are known so we know who could be responsible for overplaying the terror scares.

Northland: other candidates’ Q & A

From NZ Herald Northland by-election: Q+A with leading candidates the responses from the other eight candidates:

That’s right, like most media the Herald chooses in advance of the election who should be considered by voters and promotes them, and ignores the test. Typical undemocratic media pre-selection.

Last week the Herald did briefly mention the candidates it chose to exclude from this week’s Q & A, where the actually acknowledged Eleven candidates to contest Northland by-election.

Nominations closed today and the Electoral Commission’s list of candidates includes National’s Mark Osborne, Labour’s Willow Jean Prime, Act’s Robin Grieve, and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

They will go up against the Mana Party’s Rueben Taipari Porter and Maki Herbert for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Farmer Joe Carr

…will contest it for the Focus NZ Party — a party set up by farmers and business people in Northland before the 2014 election to campaign on “old fashioned values”.

Many of its founding members have links to National, including Northland businessman Ken Rintoul, who was on the shortlist for the National Party selection won by Mike Sabin in 2011. Former National MP Ross Meurant helped set up the Focus Party but said he had withdrawn his support about a year before the election.

Mangawhai Ratepayer’s and Residents Association chairman Bruce Rogan

…is also standing as an independent.

Mr Rogan was one of the ringleaders in the 2013 ‘rates strike’ by Mangawhai residents objecting to hefty rates increases for a cost blow out in a waste water scheme.

In 2012, he apologised to Government Minister Nick Smith for an abusive email Mr Rogan had sent about the issue which Dr Smith had referred to police.

Serial independent candidate Adam Holland

…has also entered the contest.

Mr Holland stood in Epsom in 2014 on a tongue in cheek platform of introducing a 5 per cent flat tax for residents of Epsom only, and agreeing to do anything Prime Minister John Key said. He got 21 votes.

Mr Holland also stood in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti and Christchurch East by-elections in 2013. He gave his tribal affiliation as Utemi (Ireland).

Not mentioned except in a list of all candidates at the bottom:

Adrian Bonner (Independent)

Rob Painting (Climate Party)

New Zealand voters are usually very conservative about how they vote and this at least helped by and could be accentuated by media bias towards candidates and parties they choose to promote and against those candidates they choose to exclude from public scrutiny.

In Northland coverage Winston Peters has probably been given more free publicity from media than the rest of the candidates combined.

A typical response when media are questioned about their campaign pre-selections and bias is they provide coverage that their viewers/listeners/readers are interested in.

If alternative candidates aren’t given coverage viewers/listeners/readers won’t be able to choose for themselves whether they are interested in them.

Like others NZ Herald promotes headlines and demotes democracy.

UPDATE: and to further emphasise how this is done the Herald follows up to three chosen candidate Q&As with more coverage of Peters – Northland byelection: Peters evasive over long-term plan

They don’t try and find out even the short term plans of most candidates. My guess is that they will be beating their heads against a brick wall of media bias.

NZ Herald Northland headlines:

NZH-NorthlandHeadlines

Looks like the Peters paper.

Latest Snowden revelations could be damaging

The latest installments of Snowden revelations from NZ Herald could be damaging.

Spy agency’s cyber tactic revealed

New Zealand’s spy agencies hacked into government-linked mobile phones in Asia to install malicious software to rout data…

Snowden revelations: Nicky Hager and Ryan Gallagher: New Zealand’s spy reach stretches across globe

Documents expose discrepancies between country’s secret agenda and official foreign policy.

New Zealand spies on Vietnam, China, India, Pakistan, South American nations and a range of other countries to help fill gaps in worldwide surveillance operations by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), documents show.

One camp will probably be happy to damage New Zealand’s credibility and ability to do international surveillance on the extreme end of this camp they don’t want any spying and will do what they can to undermine it.

And the other camp will have concerns about the possible negative impact on New Zealand’s (and the South Pacific’s) security.

I presume the Herald will have thought carefully about the possible impact of publishing this – and in any case if they didn’t have the scoops someone else would have published it.

And disclosing information confirming our spy agency GCSB spies will not surprise many, although it could cause some diplomatic issues.

The revelations confirm to some that we’re doing things they think we shouldn’t be doing.

And they highlight why spy agencies and their Governments try to keep what they do secret so it may strengthen the case to maintain secrecy.

Revealing details could be damaging to both sides of the debate as well as to New Zealand’s security.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,078 other followers