A couple of Standard posts with interesting aspects.
Yesterday afternoon Bill’s big policy flop, which highlighted a number of criticisms of Bill English’s ‘state of the nation’ speech and the police package he announced.
Two points from this.
One is that there has been very lukewarm interest for the post with only 12 mostly mild comments.
The other is that this was posted under ‘Notices and features’. Whoever wrote it didn’t want to identify themselves for some reason. Perhaps it was supplied material and they didn’t want to identify the source.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see Labour getting a good reception. However, I’m a little confused by the posts like this that go out under “notices and features”. Editorialised with comments from a personal perspective and a positive headline packing all the informative power of “Cop Looks at Punk in Funny Way”, surely they should have a poster’s handle attached to them?
Posts that are obviously opinionated and political where the author is not prepared to identify themselves raises suspicions about sources and motives.
Another point from that post on a discussion in comments on an observation of the number of older people obvious in the ODT photo. Jenny Kirk:
Hundreds of young people standing around in the aisles.
Polite young people – they gave up the front seats for the oldies !
Young people were asked to give up there seats, and some moved to the back. But there were not hundreds of them, there were tens of them.
Political events I’ve been to are generally dominated by older people, and this one was no exception. Older people tend to be more interested in these things.