A very ironic post at Whale Oil – NZ HERALD, RIP - that claims ‘Once Were Journalists’.
All posts tagged NZ Herald
Posted by Pete George on January 20, 2015
In her new Herald column Heather du Plessis-Allan writes about Table tweets terrible manners.
Surely we should by now have figured out how to use cellphones courteously. They have been around long enough.
It is a dilemma, given the point of the phone is to allow others to intrude – from a distance – into the moment we’re in. But too often we’re allowing that intrusion to replace the moment. I can’t remember the last time someone ignored their ring tone.
These people who can’t resist the siren song of their phones are called “cellphone zombies”.
A common complaint about cellphone rudeness. But in an opening story:
There’s a legend about a certain wealthy Wellington property developer in the early days of mobile phones. He and a friend were at dinner – or so the story goes – and the friend’s cellphone began to ring. Depending on who’s telling the story, the friend may or may not have answered the phone.
But the next bit, everyone agrees on. The property developer lunged across the table, grabbed the device and plonked it in the nearest water glass.
In the early days of mobile phones that would have needed to be a very large glass.
From From 1G to 4G- Cell Phones Making Moves – “They were first manufactured in a size similar to a brick”
Posted by Pete George on January 11, 2015
Like it or not the Treaty of Waitangi is a very sifgnificant and influential document in modeerrn New Zealand. Gareth Morgan is writing a series of articles on it for NZ Herald.
The first one is today – Gareth Morgan: Treaty justice triumph of commonsense
Much has been achieved since the renaissance of the Treaty of Waitangi began in 1975. That should be celebrated.
The Treaty – as represented by the original versions of 1840 and all the efforts to modernise its meaning since – describes the relationship between Maori, as the indigenous ethnic group, and all other New Zealanders (again taken as a group). It’s a bilateral relationship that is strong, much stronger than it was before 1975.
As we all know, the Treaty of 1840 made undertakings to Maori. These were broken in many ways, with catastrophic effects we as a society are still grappling with today. The significant achievements since the reconciliation and restoration process began in 1975 are:
1. Recognition of the importance of the unique and permanent rights of Maori in New Zealand society.
2. Acknowledgment that colonisation and Pakeha Treaty breaches decimated Maori society with ongoing intergenerational effects still playing out.
3. Establishment of unique rights for Maori over much of the natural estate and over Maori cultural treasures.
4. Granting of negotiated compensation to Maori for breaches.
5. A commitment to protect the unique bicultural character of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Justice and reparations have been a long time coming and, as generous as they might look to non-Maori, they’re just cents in the dollar for what Maori lost in terms of property. But these settlements were reached after a process of good faith negotiation, albeit having required a fair amount of pragmatism and making-it-up-as-we-go.
This is demonstrated by the way our politicians and Maori negotiators have both compromised.
However, the reparations are just the start of the journey to restore Maori pride and self-esteem – there is much more that needs to be done.
Morgan discusses the pragmatism involved in the process and required for it to work.
…the Treaty is a timeless arrangement, to be continually reinterpreted as the relationship between Maori and other New Zealanders evolves.
However despite this fluidity, the Treaty has limits. Even in its modern “elastic” form it cannot be credibly stretched to legitimise all Maori aspirations.
So this leaves us with the most important question of today: “How do we help Maoridom realise the all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga (used in Article 2, te reo version) in modern day Aotearoa New Zealand?”
I believe rangatiratanga can and must be addressed, but not through convoluted legal arguments over sovereignty, as currently pursued by the Waitangi Tribunal and iwi leaders.
In my view, this path will result in greater division between Maori and other New Zealanders.
• Limits of the Treaty process
• Better ways to deliver rangatiratanga for Maori
• One country, two peoples – practical policies.
The series will be interesting, and could provoke a bit of discussion.
Somewhere in between throwing out the Treaty and total Maori say over everything that happens in New Zealand we have to find a pragmatic formula.
Both parties to the treaty need to be realistic about what will work best for everyone in New Zealand. It won’t be easy and not everyone will be happy but it’s commonsense.
Posted by Pete George on January 7, 2015
NZ Herald reports on a Digipoll, probably the last political poll of the year. While it’s indicative of support it’s an odd time of year to run a poll, many people will have their minds on things other than politics.
They incorrectly claim:
…in the first political poll since Andrew Little took over the leadership and the first major poll since the September 20 election.
Roy Morgan have published three polls since the election, one of them since Andrew Little became leader.
You have to read through the article to find the key numbers:
- National 50.4% (up 2.2 on last Digipoll, election result 47.04%)
- Labour 28.9% (up 3.0, election 25.13%)
- Greens 9.5% (down 1.6, election 10.7%)
- NZ First 5.6% (down 2.8, election 8.66%)
- Maori Party 1.5% (“up a little”, election 1.32%)
- Mana Party 0.2% (Internet-Mana election 1.42%)
- United Future and ACT were not given poll results
It’s not surprising to see the two largest parties increasing at the expense of the smaller parties when most people’s minds won’t be very politically inclined.
National will be happy with their result considering they haven’t had a great start to their third term.
Labour and Andrew Little will be encouraged to see their support recovering slightly.
Preferred Prime Minister:
- John Key 65% (up 0.7%)
- Andrew Little 13.6% (Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe peaked at 18-19%)
This result means little at this stage.
Rating Andrew Little’s performance:
- Excellent 5.3%
- Very good 19.4%
- Good 24.7%
- Adequate 23%
- Poor 7%
That’s very encouraging for Little. I’d rate his performance so far as leader as very encouraging/very good. It will be important for him to start strongly in the New Year and not take too long. David Cunliffe had a poor and belated start to this year and he and Labour never recovered.
Source: Nats, Labour both on rise
It’s annoying that NZ Herald scatters incomplete results through and article and doesn’t provide at least a link to all the pertinent details of the poll. For all I know they could have only managed to poll 200 people this close to Christmas.
UPDATE: Full results apparently
NZ First 5.6%
Posted by Pete George on December 26, 2014
A post at The Standard – NZ Media and blogs vs blogs – quotes from a report from The Journalism, Media and Democracy research centre at AUT University.
More evidence of unethical alliances
Researchers say there is increasing evidence of what it calls unethical alliances between bloggers, politicians, media and public relations companies. The Journalism, Media and Democracy research centre at AUT University says the boundaries between those groups are blurring. The report highlighted what researchers said were major revelations in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, and said they cast a shadow over long-established media organisations.
It refers to blogger links with NZ Herald journalists.
Hager’s book has cast a shadow over long established media organisations. After the publication of Dirty Politics, Fran O’Sullivan, Jared Savage and David Fisher, journalists working for The New Zealand Herald, came clean about their earlier collaborations with Slater.
Jared Savage admitted that “information was shared, there was a bit of “horse trading”, we talked about developments as the story rolled along (Savage, 2014).
The paper’s investigative journalist David Fisher admitted in his opinion piece that “Cameron Slater was a contact of mine – Nicky Hager made this clear in Dirty Politics”; before he stopped “dealing with Slater”, he was “speaking to Slater as a contact and source” (Fisher, 2014).
The report quotes how Savage and Fisher ‘came clean” but doesn’t back up their claim about O’Sullivan.
Fran O’Sullivan has responded to this in a comment on the Standard thread:
This is ridiculous. I have never “come clean” about any so-called collaborations with Slater. The author of this academic study fails at 101 Research. If she bothered to check the author would have found I said it was risible to suggest Odgers influenced my writings.
This casts a shadow over the veracity of the research.
The report: JMAD NZ media ownership report 2014
Posted by Pete George on December 7, 2014
John Key has outlined the Government approach to dealing with the Islamic State threat in the Middle East. There have been a variety of reactions.
Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports on what Key said in John Key: Kiwi forces will help train Iraqis fight ISIS
Three NZ Defence Force personnel have already left for the Middle East to scope out a role for New Zealand forces to help train Iraqi forces fight Isis, probably in conjunction with Australia.
But any such training would be done “behind the wire” and would be undertaken by regular forces on a base, not by the SAS, Prime Minister John Key said today.
“New Zealand cannot and should not fight Iraqis’ battles for them. I am ruling out New Zealand sending SAS or any troops into combat roles in Iraq.”
Later he said the SAS could be deployed to help to protect a base in which New Zealand Forces were conducting training.
Mr Key said the role of the SAS would not be similar to the “aid and assist” role in Afghanistan, which saw it accompany the Afghanistan Crisis Response Unit on jobs.
The Dominion Post (Stuff) raises fears and dramatics in Key lights a fuse that may fire up terror:
It may not have been coincidence that John Key chose Guy Fawkes day to light a bonfire under New Zealand’s complacency about being far removed from terrorism.
Key’s landmark speech outlining New Zealand’s national security risks paints a stark picture of the rising threat from within.
There are radicalised Islamic State sympathisers living and working among us, some of them actively discussing terrorist acts on New Zealand soil, Key told a Wellington audience.
They included those thwarted in their wish to take up arms in Syria with the Islamic State (Isis) and who now posed a threat to New Zealand’s safety and security.
With the recent shooting at the Canadian Parliament still fresh in people’s minds, few will quibble at Key’s view that we can no longer rely on our place at the bottom of the world protecting us from such acts.
They stress the threat:
But that does not minimise the nature of the threat from Isis and its chilling use of social media to spread its “kill a Westerner” message.
That could be brought even closer to home if Isis makes specific threats to New Zealand after Key’s announcement yesterday of a military contribution. That contribution is likely to be limited and confined to training Iraqi forces.
But Isis is unlikely to draw that distinction.
Karol at The Standard quotes Metiria Turei’s idealistic view in Turei for peace & freedom: rejects politics of fear
The Green Party stands for peace and freedom.
Peace is the best weapon we have in achieving personal security. It is a simple fact that New Zealanders are safest in a peaceful world.
And our democracy is only as strong as our personal freedoms. When personal freedoms are eroded our democracy is weakened.
Today, John Key has eroded both our quest for peace at home and abroad, and eroded New Zealanders personal freedoms.
By offering support the US led war with ISIS we are part of a strategy that reduces the prospects of enduring peace in the Middle East; and in the process we are also being told that we have to give up freedoms here at home too.
Today I speak on behalf of a truly independent foreign policy that works for peace as the best form of security.
A foreign policy that aligns foreign and domestic interests.
I speak on behalf of our personal freedoms. I put them on a pedestal, only to be eroded in the most extreme of circumstances.
And I speak on behalf of those New Zealanders who believe in alternatives to war and fear; those who aspire to peace and freedom.
We can build a better world, but it will require a better approach than the one outlined by the Prime Minister today.
Most people want peace – but when some people are intent on war doing nothing won’t stop them. Pacifism didn’t do much good for the Moriori.
Today Metiria Turei was bold and clear. She showed a positive way forward. I give her a standing ovation!
Rather than accept the narrative Key is trying to build, Turei identities and rejects that narrative. At the same time, she provides an alternative narrative, with a positive way forward.
The real world needs the promotion of peace, but it also needs to confronting of warmongers.
Posted by Pete George on November 6, 2014
NZ Herald calls political hacking “common theft” and claims it is “relatively minor”. They are wrong on the first count and I think they are also wrong on the second.
In Editorial: Hager raid an intimidatory over-reaction the Herald voices a concern I share:
The effect of such raids is to intimidate such people from approaching media to disclose uncomfortable truths.
The raid on Nicky Hager’s home may be over the top police action and raises valid concerns about freedom of expression for journalists – but we don’t know many details apart from Hager’s side of the story so it’s difficult to judge how much of a concern at this stage.
While the heading promotes this concern the paragraph quoted above is well down the editorial.
I disagree with something in particular the editorial repeats – they talk down the severity of the hacking of Cameron Slater’s private data, possibly for political purposes and used by Hager for political purposes.
In response to a complaint of theft – common old theft – five police officers spent the best part of a day searching the Hager home and taking away everything from computers to an iPod. Not because Hager was considered a “suspect” but because he could be a “witness” to the crime.
The Herald unquestioningly promotes Hager’s version of the raid, and refers to the hacking as “common old theft”. The Rawshark hacking and subsequent use of data to try and defeat the Government in an election campaign is far from ‘common” and it isn’t even theft.
The Ministry of Justice refers to “unauthorised access to a computer system (hacking)” – that’s as I understand it. Copying data is not theft. And Findlaw describes the two offences that Rawshark could be investigated for:
Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
The Bill creates a new offence of accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose. Anyone who accesses a computer system and dishonestly, or by deception, either:
obtains some form of property or advantage; or
causes loss to any person;
can be sentenced to up to 7 years imprisonment.
Anyone who accesses a computer system with intent to either cause loss or obtain property is liable for up to 5 years imprisonment.
Accessing a computer system without authorisation
Accessing a computer system without authorisation will become a new crime punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment. This new provision is intended to cover “hacking”.
The new offence will catch a range of cyber crimes that have recently featured in the news, including stealing credit card information from Web sites, industrial espionage, the unauthorised transfer of funds from company bank accounts, and the destruction of data by hackers or disgruntled employees.
Not theft, and not common old theft, new laws were created specifically for hacking type crimes. The Herald should know basics like this, but apparently not:
A complaint of theft had been made and Hager had been identified as the eventual user of the stolen material.
If every theft complaint made to police resulted in this kind of response, searches under warrants of houses and businesses would be constant and not much else would be achieved by our constabulary.
The theft complaint was made by Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater.
It is unlikely anyone else reporting a theft would have resulted in the police raiding the receiver of the stolen property quite so readily.
Apart from the fact that it isn’t theft I’m sure the police readily raid suspected receivers of stolen property quite often.
The editorial concludes:
It would be good if that judge took a stand for freedom of expression. He or she will not be deciding whether the hacking was a crime, just whether the police treatment of Hager and his sources can be justified in the pursuit of that relatively minor criminal offence.
It’s important to determine “whether the police treatment of Hager and his sources can be justified”. If it is more intimidatory than investigative then I’ll have serious concerns.
But referring to it as “a relatively minor criminal offence” is an interesting judgement, considering the hacking of Slater and the use of his data to attempt to bring down the Government is unprecedented.
If political hacking was deemed not worthy of investigation by the police where could that lead us? I think it’s a serious threat to our democracy.
Of course what the Herald doesn’t say is media organisations like the Herald can make headlines if they are provided with hacked data.
While the Herald is not openly encouraging hacking they are trying to depict it as trivial and theft. They’re wrong on both counts.
And the Herald also doesn’t disclose that they are also the recipient of data hacked from Slater. They have a vested interest in encouraging the police to ignore this offence that is deemed serious enough to have a seven year maximum sentence.
The possible intimidating of journalists is a serious issue.
I think political hacking is also a serious issue. The playing down of hacking as minor may be in the Herald’s own interests but I don’t think their self interested stance is good for democracy at all.
Posted by Pete George on October 10, 2014
All five pollsters have released their final week results, with results narrowing.
- Polls ask “If an election was held today who would you vote for?”, they don’t try to predict election day voting.
- It is common for movements in support late in campaigns due to tactical voting and undecideds deciding.
- If ACT and United Future win electorates they may add more to seats than their share of vote.
- If the Maori Party hold all three seats they will get more than their vote share. If they hold two seats they will be about proportional to their party vote according to the poll average.
- If Conservatives don’t make the 5% threshold the other parties will increase their % share of seats.
- If Hone Harawira loses Te Tai Tokerau Internet-Mana will not get any seats and their party vote will be ‘wasted’.
- In 2011 National got 47.31% and with ACT and United Future seats were just able to make a majority.
Most of this polling will have occurred before Monday night’s “The Moment of Truth” meeting. NZ Herald recorded before and after results:
With 60 per cent of the poll done by Monday night, when the event happened, National was polling at 47.8 per cent, down on last week, said DigiPoll general manager Nandan Modak. From Tuesday it jumped to 49.1 per cent.
But I asked Andrew from Colmar brunton if he’d seen any change and he responded:
Was looking the whole time, even during.
Impossible to tell if any impact, with any degree of certainly.
I saw no increase for National compared to first two days, but it’s not that simple, as party support differs by day normally.
Colmar Brunton explain ‘margin of error”:
The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95% confidence level. This is the sampling error for a result around 50%. Results higher and lower than 50% have a smaller sampling error. For example, results around 10% and 5% have sampling errors of approximately ±1.9% points and ±1.4% points respectively, at the 95% confidence level.
See full final results –
Posted by Pete George on September 19, 2014
September 11 (+/- from September 4)
- National 52.8% (-1.4)
- Labour 22.4% (-1.9)
- Greens 13.0% (+0.1)
- NZ First 4.4% (+0.8)
- Conservative Party 3.6% (+1.2)
- Internet-Mana 1.4% (+0.1)
- Maori Party 1.0% (+0.7)
- ACT Party 0.7% (+0.5)
- UnitedFuture 0% (-0.1)
One News-Colmar Brunton
6-10 September 2014 (+/- from 30 August-3 September
- National 46% (-4)
- Labour 25% (-1)
- Greens 14% (+3)
- NZ First 7% (n/c)
- Conservative Party 4% (+1)
- Internet-Mana 1% (-1)
- Maori Party 1% (+1)
- ACT Party 1% (+1)
- UnitedFuture 0% (n/c)
Rounded to nearest whole number.
- National 48.6% (-1.5)
- Labour 24.6% (+0.8)
- Greens 11.5% (+0.1)
- NZ First 8.1% (+2.1)
- Conservative Party 3.8% (no change)
- Internet-Mana 2.3% (-1.2)
- Maori Party 0.7% (+0.3)
- ACT Party 0.3% (-0.1)
- UnitedFuture 0% (-0.3)
3 News/Reid Research
- National 46.7% (+0.3)
- Labour 26.1% (+0.2)
- Greens 13.5% (+0.4);
- NZ First 5.9% (+0.1)
- Conservatives 4.7% (+0.5)
- Internet Mana 1.7% (no change)
- Maori Party 1.3% (-0.7)
- Act 0.3% (-0.3)
- United Future 0.1% (no change)
August 18-31 2014
- National 45% (-3)
- Labour 26% (-1.5)
- Greens 16% (+4.5)
- Maori Party 0.5% (-0.5)
- Act NZ 1% (+0.5%)
- United Future 0% (-0.5)
- NZ First 6% (-0.5)
- Internet-Mana Party 1.0% (- 1.5)
- Conservative Party 3.5% (+2.5)
- Independent/ Others 1.0% (unchanged).
Rounded to nearest 0.5
Posted by Pete George on September 14, 2014
Polls are coming out thick and fast leading up to the election showing quite a bit of variability.
Here are the latest results for each party.
- Roy Morgan 45% (-0.3)
- 3 News/Reid Research 46.4% (+1.4)
- Stuff/IPSOS 54.2% (+3.4)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 50.1% (-0.6)
- One News/Colmar Brunton 50% (+2)
- Roy Morgan 26% (-1.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 25.9% (-0.5)
- Stuff/IPSOS 24.3% (-1.8)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 23.8% (-0.3)
- One News/Colmar Brunton 26% (-2)
- Roy Morgan 16% (+4.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 12.6% ()-0.9)
- Stuff/IPSOS 12.9% (+1.1)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 11.4% (n/c)
- One News/Colmar Brunton 11% (-1)
- Roy Morgan 6% (-0.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 5.8% (-0.5)
- Stuff/IPSOS 3.6% (-0.4)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 6.0% (+1.0)
- One News/Colmar Brunton 7% (+1)
- Roy Morgan 3.5% (+2.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 4.2% (-0.4)
- Stuff/IPSOS 2.4% (-0.3)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 3.8% (+0.5)
- One News/Colmar Brunton 3% (n/c)
- Roy Morgan 1% (-1.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 1.7% (-0.4)
- Stuff/IPSOS 1.3% (-0.9)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 3.5% (+0.1)
- One News/Colmar Brunton 2% (n/c)
- Roy Morgan 0.5% (-0.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 2.0 (+1.3)
- Stuff/IPSOS 0.3% (-0.4)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 0.4% (-0.6)
- One News/Colmar Brunton <0.5%
- Roy Morgan 1% (+0.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 0.6% (+0.3)
- Stuff/IPSOS 0.2% (-0.5)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 0.4% (+0.1)
- One News/Colmar Brunton <0.5
- Roy Morgan 0% (-0.5)
- 3 News/Reid Research 0.1% (-0.3)
- Stuff/IPSOS 0.1% (n/c)
- NZ Herald/Digipoll 0.3% (+0.1)
- One News/Colmar Brunton <0.5
Polling periods vary but are ordered oldest to latest.
- Roy Morgan rounds to the nearest 0.5
- One News/Colmar Brunton rounds to the nearest whole number so parties not included are <0.5%
Roy Morgan poll two weekly, the others are currently polling weekly.
Updated 5/8/14 with latest One News/Colmar poll.
- Ones News/Colmar Brunton polling period 30 Aug – 3 Sep 2014
Posted by Pete George on September 5, 2014