Media watch – Saturday

22 April 2017


Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

As usual avoid anything that could cause any legal issues such as potential defamation or breaching suppression orders. Also remember that keeping things civil, legal and factual is more credible and effective.


    • no page comes back

    • Kevin

       /  April 22, 2017

      I’d put them in prison. The way forward is decriminalisation (which New Zealand has been doing, kind of, sort of) followed eventually by legalisation and regulation. And I’m not being contradictory. I believe that alcoholics – the kind that repeatedly drink and drive – should be sent to prison too. And alcohol is a legal drug.Temperance means letting people use responsibly and punishing those that don’t.

      • Blazer

         /  April 22, 2017

        yes the right wingers answer to everything…..put them in prison,then we can have a huge prison muster,privatise the prisons….and we clever people can add them to our portfolio and recieve lovely dividends…..exploiting…misery….thats just the way…we are.

        • Kevin

           /  April 22, 2017

          Only thing that works for addicts because rehab sure as hell doesn’t.

  1. True – let’s be brave enough to virtually decriminalise all.

    If someone is found in the possession of less than a 10-day supply of anything from marijuana to heroin, he or she is sent to a three-person Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically made up of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The commission recommends treatment or a minor fine; otherwise, the person is sent off without any penalty. A vast majority of the time, there is no penalty.

    Fourteen years after decriminalization, Portugal has not been run into the ground by a nation of drug addicts. In fact, by many measures, it’s doing far better than it was before.

    Not a cure but certainly not a disaster:
    Many advocates for decriminalizing or legalizing illicit drugs around the world have gloried in Portugal’s success. They point to its effectiveness as an unambiguous sign that decriminalization works.

    But some social scientists have cautioned against attributing all the numbers to decriminalization itself, as there are other factors at play in the national decrease in overdoses, disease and usage.

    At the turn of the millennium, Portugal shifted drug control from the Justice Department to the Ministry of Health and instituted a robust public health model for treating hard drug addiction. It also expanded the welfare system in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. Changes in the material and health resources for at-risk populations for the past decade are a major factor in evaluating the evolution of Portugal’s drug situation.

    Alex Stevens, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Kent and co-author of the aforementioned criminology article, thinks the global community should be measured in its takeaways from Portugal.

    “The main lesson to learn decriminalizing drugs doesn’t necessarily lead to disaster, and it does free up resources for more effective responses to drug-related problems,” Stevens told Mic.

    • Kevin

       /  April 22, 2017

      You should read this:

      New Zealand has gone somewhat down the decriminalisation path with maximum sentences for possession being a lot lighter than maximum sentences for dealing and importing. For example judges are instructed not to give out custodial sentences for cannabis possession.
      Also amounts which are presumed as “dealing” are roughly the same as “threshold” amounts – i.e. if you’re carrying under the threshold the drugs are assumed to be for personal use only while over that is presumed for non-personal use, i.e. dealing.

      Still a lot more needs to be done with removing all custodial sentences for possession being a start. But don’t look at the Ministry of Health for help. Aim at the Ministry of Justice.

  2. Blazer

     /  April 22, 2017

    NZH ..Mary Holm….wonder if …greed..was..a factor…

    ‘We consider ourselves entrepreneurs and have always been self-employed – buying and selling houses, businesses, adding value then flicking them on.

    In 2007, we sold a large portfolio of about $700,000 including our house. We were renting while looking at what to do next. Then we promptly lost it in the downturn through a bad investment.

    Time has gone on and we’ve had some money, but we are very stupid and got conned.

    So, here we are. I’m 67 and my husband is 60. We are totally broke and embarrassed. We are like deer in the headlights. This is the first time in six months I can even write to someone about it.’……buying and selling houses ……my heart…bleeds.

    • I do have SOME sympathy for the circumstances, if not the poor decision to invest, made. I know of older people who lost their life savings after lawyers, accounts and/or bank managers recommended certain finance companies.

      These people are Kiwis who, no doubt, worked her all their lies, scrimped and saved, brought up a family and because of poor advice, invested in (what we now know) what were shonky finance companies. There are many of these people around, they’re just too embarrassed to tell their friends and family.

      • Blazer

         /  April 22, 2017

        hindsight helps no one,but if you pointed out the risk those finance coys presented to investors,I found I was accused of being….’negative’…many of the directors had prior ‘form’,the rates were hardly,generous.’The only thing you can do with good advice….is pass it on…it is never any ..good to you’..OW.

  3. Kevin

     /  April 22, 2017

    Wayne Mapp finally gets it, kind of.

    “Now of course if The Standard only wants comments from the left, it can choose to do so. All it has to do is ban anyone who expresses any view other than left wing orthodoxy, and the variations thereof. Then you you will have a comfortable echo chamber all to yourselves.”

    You’re almost there, Wayne. All you have to do now is change the wording and grammar so that you’re describing something that already is.

  4. A curious bit of information on US executions.

    • Kevin

       /  April 22, 2017

      More white people as a whole or more white people proportionally?

  5. Kevin

     /  April 22, 2017

    LPrent howler of the week:

    “Ignoring something is not the same as being able to handle them. If you don’t listen to people on the net, then you wind up in a echo chamber that is not useful.

    We eject the people who violate our rules.”

    You mean like Mathew Hooten? What rule did he break again again?