Must work harder Anthony

Anthony Robins (at The Standard) has praised Lizzie Marvelly’s  poverty piece at The Herald and makes a suggestion to the media – while he claims to be an academic he wants them to publish things he agrees with (he calls that fact-based narrative) and to not publish things he disagrees with (he calls them execrable nonsense and isolated and inconsistent snippets).

He does this in a footnote to What to do about poverty (and a suggestion to the media).

Footnote (I’m an academic, I love footnotes!) on a suggestion to the media. Almost everything you publish is a piece in isolation. There is a better way.

Take The Herald for example. You publish Marvelly’s piece on poverty today, just a week after (re)publishing Whyte’s excerable nonsense. If you had any kind of overview / foundation of established fact / ongoing context on the topic of poverty you wouldn’t be publishing such wildly inconsistent pieces (the Whyte article would have been rejected as the nonsense that it was).

Take climate change as another example, no responsible media should be publishing denier nonsense these days.

Now you (the responsible media) might say that you’re offering a range of opinions. But when some opinions are clearly and provably nonsense that excuse is just an abdication of responsibility. It’s laziness, clickbait, and harmful.

I guess I’m asking for context and sanity checking in the media. Fact-based narrative instead of isolated and inconsistent snippets. Harder work, but much better for everyone.

So Robins praises Marvelly, who shames and guilts anyone who won’t go along of her framing of ‘poverty’ in New Zealand and her vague suggested solutions.

And he wants the media to reject opinions that don’t fit with his views. That certainly isn’t better for everyone.

It’s harder work providing balance and a wide range of views, even if they might not be the same as your own. And much better for a relatively free and democratic society.

Footnote

Related to this are comments by ‘weka’ at The Standard.

On the Open Mike discussion on Marvelly:

The other problem I have with this is that it allows the deserving poor memes to continue which in turn allows the neoliberalis to keep treating so many people like shit.

I get why child poverty is focussed on. For socially intelligent people, if you address child poverty you are in fact addressing family poverty (not so much for the neoliberals and socially inept), and that in turn creates more healthy societies.

‘Socially intelligent’ (people she agrees with) versus socially inept (people she disagrees with).

And in response to Robins’ post:

Good punchy post r0b.

Re the footnote, does this mean the standard will no longer be publishing comments that are AGW denialist or poverty denialist? I hope so (although I appreciate the work involved may not make that possible).

She wants even more censorship at The Standard than Robins suggests for the media.

And Wayne Mapp takes Robins to task:

This item by Anthony Robins seems more like a request for Herald censorship than having a contest of ideas. It seems that you would prefer that arguments and positions you don’t like not to be published.

On climate change, while i accept that it is happening and is manmade, there does seems to be a genuine scientific debate about the rate of change. Surely a legitimate matter for the media to report.

Whyte’s piece was clearly an headed as an opinion piece, and not from a regular Herald columnist. His basic idea, on the best way to measure poverty, is clearly not nonsense. There is a genuine debate about whether poverty should be measured on whether a child is deprived of things that we see as essential in New Zealand, or whether a percentage of average incomes will in essence give the same answer.

If you disagree with his theme so strongly, submit your own item to the Herald.

More broadly modern media in all its forms allows any views to be aired. Or should these debates be confined to new Media, and that old media be tightly regulated. Just writing that sentence shows the impossibility of that. I for instance subscribe to The Spectator. There would not be one view expressed in The Spectator that you would agree with.

So what? That is what free speech means.

But forums like The Standard aren’t so interested in free speech. They seem want to want free speech as long as you are from the labour left and don’t threaten their opinions with alternative views or awkward questions.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

45 Comments

  1. Pantsdownbrown

     /  16th January 2016

    Anyone who has to make a point of saying they are an ‘academic’ has enough of their own personal problems to sort out………

    Reply
  2. Pete Brian

     /  16th January 2016

    Well you’re responsible for your own emotions. If she says something, gives her opinion or states facts and you read it and feel guilt or shame, who’s fault is that? It’s yours, not hers. Stop blaming others for your emotions. the fact that you feel guilt and shame after reading her article is an indication that what she is saying must be true, well at least your conscience believe it. Anthony is suggesting that media should be fact based, what’s wrong with that? It’s a reasonable suggestion.

    Reply
    • I don’t feel any guilt or shame. I didn’t say that I did.

      I said that Marvelly is shaming and guilting people. That doesn’t mean people feel shame or guilt on reading what she writes.

      Anthony is suggesting media should be based on facts he agrees with, not facts or opinions he disagrees with (media should also provide a variety of opinions as well as being fact based).

      Reply
      • Pete Brian

         /  16th January 2016

        Politicians use fear/guilt to gain public support to deploy troops to foreign war zones, they use fear to get the public to support their policies. Retailers use fear to get consumers to buy their products. Real estate agents use fear to get people buying property. So you think she’s using guilt to support her cause. So what. I didn’t feel guilty after reading it I felt informed.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  16th January 2016

          She made me feel irritation, not guilt or shame. I can never remember seeing anyone going through a dustbin looking for food when I was at school-I’d like to know which school she went to, if this was happening. I went to primary schools where the pupils came from a variety of backgrounds.

          Reply
          • Pete Brian

             /  16th January 2016

            Well if you didn’t witness it then it can’t possibly be true. If you didn’t see happened at your school then it couldn’t possibly of happened at any other time at any other school. Well done you have presented a solid argument.

            Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  16th January 2016

            I have only bought two houses, and I was living in the first one, but when I was looking for a new one, I wasn’t subjected to fear by the agents. Nor am I frightened by retailers or politicians. These surely try to make their products seem really attractive-yes, there’s the ‘when they’re gone, they’re gone’ line, but that’s surely not enough to induce fear, only to make one think that now is the time to buy the whatever it is. Political parties worldwide use the vote for us and all will be gas and gaiters line rather than trying to make us feel only fear-although it’s implicit even if not explicit that if we don’t, it won’t. But this is a great over-simplification.

            I did not feel informed by Lizzie Marvelly, but as I never do, I wasn’t surprised.

            Reply
            • Pete Brian

               /  16th January 2016

              Why did you buy a house? Was for security? Why did you buy a second home? Was it for financial security? If you’re seeking security than you must be afraid of something. Maybe you were afraid of missing out because the price of houses were sky rocketing. Why did you vote for national? Was it because you were afraid that the economy would decline if you didn’t? Or that the opposition policies wouldn’t benefit a property investor like your self. That sounds like fear to me. Or why did you allow troops to deploy to a foreign war? Was it because you’re scared of ISIS? It’s sounds like you have been manipulated by fear my friend. Don’t worry most of the population are the same.

            • David

               /  16th January 2016

              Fear ! I feel sorry for you if you think the only reason why people want more and better is because they are scared of loosing what they have. The whole history of humankind is betterment in all its many and varied guises be they wealth, health, happiness, convenience etc. Humans are hard wired to improve their lot and have done since day dot….except of course the lefties who sit on the sidelines and jealously moan its not fair and want it handed to them for no effort.

            • Pete Brian

               /  16th January 2016

              Have you ever looked at why humans have wanted to “better” their lives. The answer is fear or insecurity to be exact. We have nice things to elevate our social status because we fear that other people won’t respect us if we don’t drive a nice car or own a nice house or have a good job etc..

    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  16th January 2016

      The real FACT here is that she has written an opinion piece that contains no facts? Jamie Whyte did exactly the same thing but Anthony says he shouldn’t be allowed to do so because Anthony doesn’t agree with it? If you can’t see the hypocrisy in that then you are obviously part of the ‘flat-earth believers’ for they too believed the ‘science-was-settled’ and the earth was indeed flat.

      Reply
  3. Kevin

     /  16th January 2016

    The Standard is an echo chamber for SJWs.

    Reply
  4. Timoti

     /  16th January 2016

    “Footnote (I’m an academic, I love footnotes!). ” No,shit, Sherlock. I think we worked that out before the footnotes came into view. My area has a Leftie with similar sentiments– he’s a syndicated columnist by the name of Bruce Bisset. Bruce believes there should be no more views published contradicting the majority view of scientists who believe man-made climate change is a fact. The evidence is in…the argument over, he believes. What is it about the Left and their problem with “diversity? “

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  16th January 2016

      ‘Robbers dog’ mentioned Australian physician Barry Marshall on another thread. He was a man alone against the ‘science was settled’ brigade & also big drug companies with a financial interest in keeping the status quo.

      His story is here: http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  16th January 2016

        Cool, I knew of his percution and basically what he had dicovered, but this article filled the story out. Makes you wonder what other medico is currently being perscuted for having a simple solution to a major problem.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th January 2016

      Alan Duff nailed it on ISIS and the Left are exactly the same minus the jihad gospel: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11572821

      Reply
      • Pete Brian

         /  16th January 2016

        You could say the exact same about other fanatical groups like the US empire, Israelis, evangelical Christians. How is it that when an ISIS soldier fights for his beliefs that he is labeled ” a fanatic” and his death was ” suicide” , but when an American marine flights he is labelled a “hero” and his death was a “sacrifice” for the cause. The point I am trying to make is that we have more in common than you think. I think the guy who wrote this article needs to lay of you tube and come back to reality.

        Reply
        • Kevin

           /  16th January 2016

          “How is it that when an ISIS soldier fights for his beliefs that he is labeled ” a fanatic” and his death was ” suicide” , but when an American marine flights he is labelled a “hero” and his death was a “sacrifice” for the cause.”

          Because ISIS are evil.

          Really, they are.

          Reply
          • Pete Brian

             /  16th January 2016

            I think you actually did some research you find there is evil on both sides.

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  16th January 2016

          You need to educate yourself about “the guy who wrote this article”.

          As for the rest, there is a world of difference between open minds and closed minds so no, we don’t have more in common than we think.

          Reply
          • Pete Brian

             /  16th January 2016

            This guy is a nobody so I’m not going to bother. So you call meddling in the middle east for financial gain “open minded” And indigenous people fighting to protect their way of life “close minded”. What we have in common is idiots that a prepared to fight for fanatical institutions.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th January 2016

              You just fell off the bottom of the idiots scale. Have a nice life.

            • Pete Brian

               /  16th January 2016

              That’s the kind of thing someone says when they lo
              lose an argument. It’s must be hard when you don’t have a leg to stand on.

            • David

               /  16th January 2016

              I think its more there being no winners in a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant Pete. Your position and your tacit defence of ISIS who throw gays off buildings, use women as chattels and are targeting innocent civilians is too odd to argue with.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th January 2016

              Not only doesn’t know who Alan Duff is but is too stupid to find out. Classic know nothing, thinks he knows everything, Lefty. Ripe for ISIS recruitment.

            • @ David – Your tacit defence of insult and derision as a form of argument is exceedingly odd but sadly typical of your type, Systems Justifiers.

              Note how Pete Brian’s distinctly open-minded position has been turned into “tacit defence of ISIS”. Anyone can say this sort of thing about almost anything anyone else says. “You really meant something else or something more and if I say so it must be true”.

              And woe betide anyone who says we may have to negotiate with ISIS and in order to do so someone among us will have to make an effort to understand their position, because, of course, this is supporting them, right?

              And “we have stuff in common”? Shit! That’s like preaching peace, isn’t it? We wouldn’t want that! Nail that dude to a cross somewhere.

              @ Alan – Alan Duff has had a checkered career. I don’t see what makes his opinion any more worthy than anyone elses?

              He covers the field here though, “This columnist is not out to get you [Muslims]. He wants to understand if you can be negotiated with. We know the majority of Muslims are NOT terrorists … None of us is perfect and those who think they are are dangerous to everyone, including themselves”.

              You and David recognise yourselves in there at all?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th January 2016

              @PZ, there are lots of things you don’t see. One of them may be that your local primary school is provided with books for the children to own and take home because of exactly that Alan Duff and his Books in Homes Foundation.

              Another is that he was not offering mere opinion, but an analysis and not merely his but from one well-informed insider.

              Sorry to disappoint, but no, I have no desire to be perfect, nor to suffer fools gladly. We seem to have more than an adequate supply around here which I don’t always manage to ignore.

        • David

           /  17th January 2016

          Only if you can narrow your perspective enough to blind yourself to the fact your typical ISIS bomber is just there to cause as much harm to non-believers as possible while blowing him or her self up. Despite what many seem to think, Marines do not go out of their way to kill civilians as the sole intent of their endeavours.

          So, they may well be superficially similar, the moral compasses are 180 degree apart.

          Reply
      • Timoti

         /  16th January 2016

        Great article. Good to see Duffer still breathing. Most of his predictions on Maoridom have come true.

        I would love to shake this chap, Ibrahim Al-Buleihi’, hand. That assumes his head is attached to shoulders and isn’t atop of a pole.

        “But he should seek the truth. He must not efface himself and dissolve into the herd.”
        Marvellous !!

        “He speaks of Israel, implying its prosperity and political freedoms are due to it being an offshoot of Western culture” That’s what I have been saying forever, although other factors are involved. Its why Israel must be defended at all costs. Israel is a beachhead in Muslim territory. And don’t Muslims know it.

        You aren’t too wrong comparing ISIS with the Left. Both are fundamentalist, and both lack the realisation that civilisation evolves on the back of individual endeavour and freedom of thought.

        Thank god I was born in the West. I wear the ” moniker” Infidel with pride.

        Reply
        • @ Timoti – I enjoyed the Duff article too and appreciated hearing from a reasonable and moderate Muslim.

          “Israel is a beachhead in Muslim territory. And don’t Muslims know it”.

          Right of conquest applies if ‘we’ win the territory, correct?

          Of course if some ‘alien looking’ foreign nationality establishes a beachhead in our territory, as Japan did throughout S.E. Asia in 1941-42, condemning the present inhabitants – who may themselves have won prior conquest rights – to ‘occupation’, herding ‘our’ combatants and civilians alike into camps or ghettos … does any of this sound remotely like the Palestinian situation … we will fight and fight them, even back beyond their own borders, until we’ve achieved their complete, unconditional surrender (and debasement) and if it means employing a terrible new weapon of mass destruction, so be it.

          But Muslims must be condemned for attempting such defence. Indeed, Islam must be defeated for attempting it? They must bend to our will or be broken to it. Our way is best. It’s assumed in everything we write and say about them. Then we’re shocked and irrate that they equally assume their way is right!

          There are various theories about how modern Israel came about, one of them being it was the price paid by Britain for Zionist-Rothschild financial backing of the Suez canal.

          http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/The-Conspiracy-to-Rule-the-World-1.shtml

          Comparing ISIS with the Left is nothing short of intellectual depravity. Shame on you.
          Such comparisons are odious and commonplace. Points scoring sans content. This one says the Swedish Foreign Minister compared ISIS with your precious Israel – http://www.imemc.org/article/73901 – (although she didn’t really) –

          The hard-line socialism and communism of a century ago was ‘fundamentalist’, I think primarily because putting the theory into practice didn’t work without significant levels of social control. Your contemporary “Left” are generally mild by comparison and made up of a raft of different groups.

          You think it was only “individual endeavour” built the Pyramids, The Roman Empire, the Great Wall, the Empire State building, Suez or NZ’s hydro stations? Any civilisation? Of course its an important ingredient but for heaven’s sake, let’s not renounce thought yet again!? There’s clearly endeavour at group, community, societal and international levels as well.

          Do you actually believe there’s no id or no collective consciousness or collective unconscious? No ‘mind’ beyond the bounds of each individual person’s skull?

          “Man has no Body distinct from his soul; for that called Body is a portion of a Soul discerned by the five senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.”
          ― William Blake

          “Where is the mind located? If the mind is a physical phenomenon of some kind, it has to be located somewhere. According to some, there are two possible options: either the mind is internal to the body (internalism) or the mind is external to it (externalism). More generally, either the mind depends only on events and properties taking place inside the subject’s body or it depends also on factors external to it” – Wiki

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind#Externalism_and_internalism

          Reply
          • kiwi guy

             /  17th January 2016

            “The hard-line socialism and communism of a century ago was ‘fundamentalist’, I think primarily because putting the theory into practice didn’t work without significant levels of social control. Your contemporary “Left” are generally mild by comparison and made up of a raft of different groups.”

            They are “mild” because Marxism failed to install Totalitarian dictatorships, and exterminate “class enemies” in their 10s of millions, in Western countries especially English speaking countries, ESPECIALLY the USA – where its institutions have proved extremely robust against classical Marxism.

            That’s why current Leftist HATE the USA so much and is listed by them as Public Enemy No. 1.

            Having reinvented itself as Cultural Marxism with the goal of a “Long March through the institutions” of the West, this revised Marxism is doing serious damage to Western Civilisation.

            All those “rafts of different groups” are united by the ideology of Cultural Marxism, they are all operating from the same playbook to white ant Western society and culture.

            Reply
            • @ KG – It’s so very polarised isn’t it? Bipolar almost?

              So now we have inverted totalitarianism instead of communism. The military-industrial Wolf in free-market capitalist Fox’s clothing vs the Cultural Marxist Hyena in socially conscious Sheep’s clothes.

              The big difference is FMC Fox’s each think for themselves individually, whereas SCS Sheep, often as well educated and hard-working, can only follow the Leftie herd, right?

              You talk this paranoid crap and expect people to take you seriously?
              I want links to interesting Leftie websites and more photos KG?

              I remember in the 80’s when the US Dept of Agriculture paid people NOT to raise certain crops and livestock. An excellent American Lesbian Feminist comedian I saw live wrote to them and said, “I live in a small apartment in San Diego. I could NOT raise pigs there! Please pay me not to raise pigs?”

              That was a robust institution, yeah? I believe it has since liberalised?

              America has been through its socially conscious phase, mistakenly called “socialism”. It spent vast amounts of money on protecting and promoting U.S. industry to create employment, perhaps moreso than NZ did but very similar – tariff protections, subsidies, regional development etc. Those days are gone, and so are most of the industries, eg Detroit.

  5. kiwi guy

     /  17th January 2016

    I read the introduction to Lizzie Marvelly last weekend in the NZ Herald replete with heavy make up, big doe eyes and pouting lips drowning in lip gloss , she is a hardcore Social Justice Warrior regurgitating all the usual Leftist agitprop.

    You think her poverty propaganda piece is bad? That’s just a warm up, wait till she gets rolling on themes even more dear to her man hating heart.

    ^ Ms Marvelly well armed with lip gloss staring past the camera at all that OPPRESSION to fight – #SOBRAVE

    Reply
  6. What an interesting thread……..

    Whytes’ opinion piece was on the money, Robbins doesn’t like it so goes straight to semi personal abuse about “execrable” writing and argues that only “fact” based pieces be publish, namely “fact” based articles he approves of…..

    And we get Robbins defended…. hmmmm lovely

    Reply
  7. higherstandard

     /  17th January 2016

    Anthony is one of the most intellectually dishonest and partisan bloggers in NZ, sometimes he even makes Cam Slater’s diatribes look balanced.

    i remember having some biffo with him at the standard some years ago about the utility of vaccination and he must have cornered the NZ market in straw for the arguments he was putting up for not vaccinating.

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  17th January 2016

      I bet the world’s greatest sysop and legal expert banned you over that biffo. Can’t have anyone disagreeing with an author.

      Reply
  8. Kevin

     /  17th January 2016

    Robin’s latest:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/not-all-research-is-created-equal/

    “Another footnote – my last post generated such a predictably facile misrepresentation by the right wing blogs (Slater / George) that I can’t wait to see what I’m going to be accused of this time!”

    Congrats Pete, you’re now official a right winger. And we now know for sure that The Standard reads this blog. Definitely explains all the downvotes.

    Reply
    • higherstandard

       /  17th January 2016

      Typical Robin’s resorting to ad hominems. still at least he’s not as nauseating as the One Anonymous Bleater.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  17th January 2016

        How Robins can call himself an academic and write for The Standard is beyond me. It’s like calling yourself a chef and working for McDonalds.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to PartisanZ Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s