Media watch – Wednesday

21 June 2017

MediaWatch

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.

56 Comments

  1. sorethumb

     /  June 21, 2017

    Last week Gavin Ellis and Kathryn Ryan were discussing the reporting of Islamic Terrorism (IT). Ellis said the actions didn’t represent true Islam which (in his humble opinion) is “one of the worlds great religions”. They said “you don’t report every traffic accident that happens overseas!” (meaning why keep reporting these terrorist acts). This morning I detected (in reference to a recent Paris attack) a slanting towards the crazy police and local council for not co-ordinating the fact he was on a terrorist watch list while issued a gun permit by the council. Mamamia it’s their fault don’t you see!?

  2. Blazer

     /  June 21, 2017

    a real NZ hero….courage,committment,altruism,unwavering belief…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11879551

    • PDB

       /  June 21, 2017

      Good on her for overcoming so many obstacles/tragedy/troubles in her life – politically a total disaster, best left out of Parliament holding up traffic whilst protesting with her rent-a-mob mates.

      • Blazer

         /  June 21, 2017

        politically the most honest,uncompromising person to…enter Parliament.Achieved more than
        a gadfly like Key,by any objective…measure.

        • PDB

           /  June 21, 2017

          Yep – Key helped the country get out of the GFC and earthquakes and Sue stopped good parents lightly disciplining their children whilst doing nothing about other ‘parents’ bashing their kids to death.

          • Blazer

             /  June 21, 2017

            correction…Key worked at Merrill Lynch….one of the culprits who…caused the GFC….please get it….right.

            • Gezza

               /  June 21, 2017

              And she was a drug addict … so … ?

            • Blazer

               /  June 21, 2017

              @Gezza…do you have a point…if you do…make it.

            • Gezza

               /  June 21, 2017

              1. 🌸
              2. ⬇️

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 21, 2017

              You keep mentioning that, but Key was in the foreign currency division which had nothing to do with the GFC, and he left in 1999 almost a decade before the GFC happened.
              You’d have to look hard to find a longer bow to draw on that one.

            • Blazer

               /  June 21, 2017

              @HFC…the foundations of the GFC were laid in the 80’s with de-regulation,and later the repeal of Glass Steagal,and the explosion of derivatives.Obscene bonus payments and forex gambling on the NZ dollar began in 1984.The best analysis I have seen re Key…is here…
              http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/opinion-is-john-key-the-finest-actor-of-his-generation/

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 21, 2017

              I don’t really want to get into this, but Glass-Steagal was controversial from the get go and even it’s enactors tried to repeal it.

              I’ve read the article you posted before and it is a facile piece, that doesn’t add to your argument at all.

              Huge bonuses and forex trading were not the cause of the GFC, so whether they were obscene or not is irrelevant.

              Here’s another take on how the GFC happened:

              The Democrats under Clinton legislated to force lenders to give money to poorer people who could not afford it:

              “Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers’ expense) by multiple government bodies.

              The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

              According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.

              The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to “promote homeownership,” not to apply sound lending standards.

              Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street–leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for months. Is this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.

              In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board’s inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance.”

              https://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html

            • Gezza

               /  June 21, 2017

              @ Blazer

              The best analysis I have seen re Key…is here…

              Very perceptive & interesting article. Thanks for that.

              My point I was making above, because it applies to both Sue Bradford & John Key, is that whatever they did or has happened in their past has got them to who & where they are now, but the discussion is about what they have achieved or done in the political field – not what you think one of them should be denigrated for.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 21, 2017

              It’s a pretty one-dimensional article and one idea spun out for the whole thing. Key was much more than an actor: a very successful political strategist, implementor and people manager as well as a presenter and debater. Not so impressed.

            • Gezza

               /  June 21, 2017

              Yeah, but you’re a stubborn, one-eyed bastard who looks at things through the wrong end of the telescope, like him, Al. (No offence intended, of course.) Unlike moi who – & I am sure patu, as an objective evaluator would agree – am able to soar sbove it all like a pukeko & see the bigger picture from many different angles from on high.

          • Blazer

             /  June 22, 2017

            @Gezza..you dismiss Bradford as a drug addict….all I can say is she has more integrity than Key..who is a notorious fake and serial liar..albeit as a result a wealthy ..one.

            • Gezza

               /  June 22, 2017

              No, I didn’t dismiss her as a drug addict. I helpfully explained, seeing it went over your head, in more detail further down what my point was.

            • Gezza

               /  June 22, 2017

              I do beg your pardon, Blazer – I explained it above, just before I advised Alan of his ocular problems. If you still don’t understand it, I think we have already established elsewhere twice today that your comprehension skills leave rather a lot to be desired.

            • Blazer

               /  June 22, 2017

              @Gezza…’not what you think one of them should be denigrated for.’…
              ‘And she was a drug addict … so … ?’comprehension..you say!

    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 21, 2017

      I’ll give her the “courage and unwavering belief”. Also a true person of principles which is rare these days.
      If she’d put her tenacity to better use I would suggest she could have done great things. Alas she will go down as the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation and a member of rent-a-mob. Hardly a glittering resume.

      • Blazer

         /  June 21, 2017

        she did not pass that legislation on her own.If you think about it ,hitting children..is not a good idea.As for rent a mob..a cliche trotted out by the establishment when confronted with passionate opposition…not appropriate.The kings of ‘rent a mob’ are the CI.A and the N.S.A…their go to policy ,for agitating for regime change in …countries that disobey..Uncle Sam.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 21, 2017

          The anti-smacking law is a farce. And light correction is perfectly fine – I certainly used it on my kids. Funny enough we were consistent, they learned fast and so far are turning out pretty good.
          For boys a short sharp shock and it’s over works far better than protracted time outs and family conferences.
          Name a cause and I bet you’ll see Sue, all guns blazing – the rent-a-mob “cliche” is there because the same faces appear at almost every protest on every issue.

          • Blazer

             /  June 21, 2017

            were you ..belted by your parents..and turned out ..alright’?Bradford walked away from Mana and the Greens on principle,so hardly guilty of protesting every ..’cause’.Without the Bradfords of the world…nothing…changes.

            • PDB

               /  June 21, 2017

              Sue could see the writing on the wall………

              An ill-fitting cardigan and a never-ending runny nose wasn’t going to cut it.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 21, 2017

              I wasn’t “belted” by anyone. And to be clear neither were my kids.
              If you look above I give credit for Bradford being a person of principles.
              But protests like hers rarely achieve anything unfortunately.
              Constructive change from within rather than screaming and placards seems to work better. She unfortunately couldn’t handle that aspect and as you say – she walked away from the table to resume the shouting.

            • PDB

               /  June 21, 2017

            • Conspiratoor

               /  June 21, 2017

              Pants, i think it was the world class dancer with the Mona Lisa smile what did for sue. I believe she’s up against key. If she breaks out her lambada before the erection he’s toast

      • Blazer

         /  June 21, 2017

        Clinton repealed GS at the urgings of Wall St.Your other ‘take on what caused the GVC is the charlatan s of Wall Sts feeble, pathetic attempt at avoiding blame.As for facile…. Not at all… Balanced and fair article.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 21, 2017

          The “other take” is simply yet another example of Government do-gooder legislation getting in the way of market forces and preventing necessary correction until it is well out of control.

          Even the lefty Economist took that view.

          But back to the original point – trying to pin any of it on John Key is simply wrong and pathetic.

          • Blazer

             /  June 21, 2017

            The vampire squid /Wall Street s greed and fraud… caused the GFC … Key is a member of that club.period.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 21, 2017

              Enjoy your blinkered view. Life’s much easier when there’s always someone else to blame…

  3. Blazer

     /  June 21, 2017

    ‘ a light correction’…the wonderful world of euphemisms we seem to have come to admire and …use.Best…enhanced interrogation,collateral damage,…yours a…bronze.I disagree with your catalysts for…change.and so does…history.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 21, 2017

      If you can point me to the great advances in child protection that have been brought on by the legislation – or even a small gain – then I will concede the point.
      The legislation was just another example of targeting the mainstream to combat fringe behavior.
      If you can’t distinguish a light smack from a belting then I would suggest you have issues that need to be looked at.

      • Blazer

         /  June 21, 2017

        It’s asking for trouble trying to define what your , light smack’ is.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 21, 2017

          Got nothing then?

          • Blazer

             /  June 22, 2017

            How To Understand The New Zealand Anti-Smacking LawDifficulty: EasyRating:
            By: admin
            In 2009 the New Zealand Government enforced an Anti-Smacking Law. But what does this law mean exactly, and what are your rights as a parent?
            What Is The Law?
            In 2009 The New Zealand Public was asked to vote and pass a referendum regarding the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” Following the vote the Government enforced the Anti Smacking Law.
            The purpose of the Anti-Smacking law is essentially to make better provision for children so that they can live in a safe and secure environment that is free from violence. The Anti-Smacking law seeks to achieve this by abolishing the use of parental force for the purposes of correction.
            The Purpose Of The Law
            Although most parents do not abuse their children unfortunately some parents do and it is a big problem in New Zealand.
            The Anti-Smacking law provides a safe and secure environment for both children and adults and ensures positive outcomes as children grow up. The law makes it clear that physical discipline is not a necessary or acceptable part of parenting because it undermines a child’s feelings of safety and security. In addition, the law helps to ensure that a child’s right to a fair deal in the courts is respected.
            New Zealand among a growing number of countries around the world who have a legal ban on the use of physical punishment with children.
            The law is designed to teach children that physical discipline is not the answer. Violence leads to fear and distrust of adults and often does not help children understand what behaviour is expected of them.
            The law helps to ensure that children’s right to a fair deal in the courts are respected.
            The law places New Zealand among a growing number of countries around the world who have a legal ban on the use of physical punishment with children.
            What Are The Rules?
            The rules apply to section 59 of the New Zealand Crimes Act. Use of force for correction is strictly forbidden. The Anti-Smacking Law states that adults who hit children hard enough to be prosecuted cannot excuse their behaviour as ‘correction’.
            Adults caring for children can still use ‘force’ (by methods of holding or restraining) to keep children safe – for example adults can stop a child from running out onto the street, touching a hot stove, hurting themselves or other children and they can carry a protesting child out of a supermarket.
            In using ‘force’ parents or guardians must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief that the force is both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
            Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints made against a parent of a child or guardian where the offence is considered to be so minor that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
            Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children who are often stubborn and fidgety. When changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat the use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted.’…Wiki

        • patupaiarehe

           /  June 21, 2017

          So lets define it, Blazer. For the purpose of correcting my child, he would get a quick slap across the backside, if he hit/bit one of his siblings, or hit/bit me, or his mother. You, however, would get a firm ‘backhander’ from myself, simply for being an idiot… 😀

          • High Flying Duck

             /  June 21, 2017

            You brute!

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 21, 2017

              My kids don’t think I’m a ‘brute’ at all, HFD. They enjoy taking the piss out of me, on a daily basis. The eldest two watch me commenting here, and the three of us have reached a consensus on Blazer….

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 21, 2017

              I’m really tempted, HFD, to drag my son away from COD, on his computer, to give the ‘group’ a little perspective, on what a terrible parent I am, LOL

            • Gezza

               /  June 21, 2017

              H just left off the big goofy grin & wink icon from his post, patu.

            • Gezza

               /  June 21, 2017

              Dunno where Al’s gone. I set bait out…

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 22, 2017

              Tongue firmly in cheek Patu – your definition is exactly how I see it too. Based on the ‘consensus’ you reached I get the feeling your kids are well grounded and don’t suffer fools…

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 22, 2017

              Bath and bed, G. Long drive back from a meeting in the big smoke and still getting over the cold courtesy of the new Dreamliner recycled air. Also a fight with a locked seatbelt around the repaired TV we picked up in Whangarei on the way. Resisted the urge to take a knife to the belt and dismantled the stand to finally get it out. Not in a good mood. Ate warmed up pizza instead of your bait.

            • Gezza

               /  June 22, 2017

              Not to worry Al. I imagine Blazer will be along shortly to cheer you up.

            • Gezza

               /  June 22, 2017

              Based on the ‘consensus’ you reached patu I get the feeling your kids are well grounded and don’t suffer fools

              I’d probly be getting a hostile reception from the kids if I ever popped in to whare patu. 😕

          • Blazer

             /  June 22, 2017

            …inviting a corrective..reaction..

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 22, 2017

              My offer of a firm backhander still stands, Blazer, if you would like a ‘corrective reaction’… 😉

            • Blazer

               /  June 22, 2017

              go for your ..life…

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 22, 2017

            • Blazer

               /  June 22, 2017

              I see what you mean ,by a light smacking….watch out for the …left….Bol.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 23, 2017

  4. Blazer

     /  June 23, 2017

    I don’t take that into consideration….when I post,so think..again.

    • patupaiarehe

       /  June 23, 2017

      To be fair, neither do I. Take it in the spirit it is intended, Blazer…