A note to a Standard blogger

Lprent has posted at length in indignation at what Gavin Ellis said on RadionNZ about The Standard, defending his blog and the integrity of his bloggers – A note to a media commentator.

Fair enough, he has a right to free speech on hisn own blog. A couple of  points.

One bit did make me laugh. The likelihood of our authors being ‘manipulated’ has about the same lifetime of plausibility as a snowballs chance in hell. These aren’t junior reporters. With most of them, I’d rate any manipulators chances of getting away with a straight spine after the attempt to be quite low. They make their own decisions on a personal basis about what they will write about.

I don’t think there was a great manipulation conspiracy. A post or two started the ball rolling and the theme was picked up on – or disagreed with – by other authors.

But I don’t think that’s the key point. It’s not hard to ponder whether the catalyst post by Eddie had some connection to someone in Labour with an interest in trying to precipitate a leadership coup.

Anyhone who has a knowledge of how the  Eddie pseudonym has been used at The Standard is aware it has strong Labour Party connections.

I don’t think ‘Eddie’ has been manipulated. But there’s a strong possibility that the Eddie pseudonym has been used to try and manipulate Labour Party leadership, on behalf of David Cunliffe.

And if, as is possible, David Cunliffe wasn’t involved in a deliberate attempt to take over the leadership, I can imagine he would have been very embarrassed by what happened, as it was obvious the calls for leadership change were supporting him.

But Cunliffe didn’t look embarrassed this week, he looked to be taking advantage of the publicity.

Authors on our site are not ‘anonymous’. They write under their pseudonym. Nor is any commentator on our site if I choose to find out who they are.

So if lprent can discover their identity they’re not anonymous? But the world isn’t only as seen by lprent. People not familiar with a blog will see many authors and commenters as anonymous – their identities and their political connections are unknown to nearly everyone.

In a recent exchange here lprent said…

We really don’t care that much about what the politicians or the media or fence straddlers or even the general public think. We didn’t set up for them.


The authors often care a great detail about what “politicians and the media think”. And we are quite happy to hold a satirical and critical mirror to the pretentious buffoonish actions.

But we just don’t care about what they think about us


Where is the focus on the opinions of politicians and media in there? There isn’t.

This causes a different site dynamic. We aren’t looking for the support and approval of others.

Has lprent has suddenly become a more caring sort of chap? He seems to care now about how his blog is seen from the outside.

It’s a bit ironic that all this, started a week ago by Eddie, is has resulted in an aggrieved lprent. The Eddie pseudonym is well known for over the top, inaccurate and dishonestly misleading posts. The Eddie pseudonym once banned me for calling the Eddie of the day on an attack post using blatant bullshit.

Lynn, you support bullshit and lies in your blog. Perhaps you protest a bit much about your perception of inaccuracies from others.

1 Comment

  1. GregM

     /  November 17, 2012

    Tend to agree Pete. And this is the same blog that has ” media accreditation” at the Labour party conference. The standard, and the Labour party, for supporting their vitriol are laughable.