Media watch – Monday

19 February 2018

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.

Previous Post

53 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  February 19, 2018

    view on recalcitrant Ralph…personal responsibility is not for…management..
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/101444361/fletcher-buildings-sir-ralph-norris–master-or-martyr

    • High Flying Duck

       /  February 19, 2018

      The article basically says the issues at Fletcher had nothing to do with Ralph, but he needed to take responsibility because the buck stops with him.

      It then says he took responsibility in…what, the wrong way?

      “It’s understandable Norris might feel the situation is unjust (as there is no suggestion any of it was of his making) but that’s the flip side of taking on the big jobs.
      Of course I’m not saying that the financial foul-up is of Norris’ making, but he’s the ultimate boss and it happened on his watch.”

      Ralph Norris appears to have cauterized the issues at Fletcher’s, all of which were the fault of his predecessor; laid bare the problem and set in place complete restructure of the offending unit.

      He has then taken the big hit and resigned his position – taking on the responsibility of his position.

      But for poor Ellen Read that is not enough?

      Ridiculous article.

      • Blazer

         /  February 19, 2018

        if you ever see a Sir on the board of a listed coy…run.’Knight mares ‘include,Norris,Trotter,Deans,Jones,Cushing,Tait,and the undisputed champ…Sir Humphrey Fay…not forgetting former Nat President…Sir George Chapman…either…hopeless bunch.

      • Blazer

         /  February 19, 2018

        the Shareholders Assoc has been sounding alarm bells for years,Who do you lay the blame with again?

  2. High Flying Duck

     /  February 19, 2018

    Damien Grant may have, well lets be charitable and say a mixed past with various levels of success.

    But his opinion pieces are often inciteful and almost always thought provoking.

    This one is very hard to argue with. Many people have suggested National needs to split in to new parties, or create a “blue greens” party.

    However, within the existing party there is now too broad a mix of centrists and liberals at one end, and fiscal and social conservatives at the other.

    It is quite possible to be in complete agreement with one National MP’s and totally against another’s ideals and vision. The fact Nikki Kaye and Judith Collins are part of the same party is enough to suggest change is needed.

    ________

    “The problem with the National Party it is a broad church, covering the socially conservative MP for Pakuranga Simeon Brown and the almost libertarian Paul Goldsmith. Between these two gentlemen is a wide variety of perspectives, with most MPs and members having no clear ideology at all.

    National was organised in 1936 to combat the rising success of the Labour Party. The relatively progressive Liberal Party and the conservative Reform Party combined forces to forestall what they saw as the common enemy. National governments have included the de-regulating post-war administration of Sidney Holland and the interventionist Robert Muldoon.

    National has never had an underlying belief system, even if a few of its members occasionally stumble across an economic text book. They are committed to keeping Labour out of power but never really sure what to do when they find themselves in office.

    The latest leadership carnival highlights how ideologically bankrupt the party has become. There is a desire for a “generational change”, which is meaningless and as far as I can tell none of the candidates would know who John Stuart Mill is, much less have read him, and would be unable to articulate the difference between Keynes and Friedman, pre-supposing they even knew who they were.”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/101523338/damien-grant-national-party-is-a-relic-that-should-be-dismantled

    • Gerrit

       /  February 19, 2018

      Cant find the reference but John Key had the principal that as long as enough voters agreed with a minimum 60% off the policies promoted, they would win.

      So you could be 40% against Nationals policies but you would still vote for them.

      He recognised that you would never get 100% agreement on policies.

      I don’t think splitting the party intentionally is going to work.

      It is possible that splinter groups will detach to form their own parties. But not be design.

      • Blazer

         /  February 19, 2018

        don’t give Key the credit…it belongs to..Crosby.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  February 19, 2018

        You may be right Gerrit, but you end up with a permanently disaffected voter base. They vote to keep the other lot out and to stop a lurch to the left, rather than for any positive push forward.
        Seems a bit negative.
        I think there is room for two larger parties on the centre right and right.
        To be fair, if ACT finally had their death throes and drifted off into the night, a proper fiscally conservative party could take it’s place and that would solve the issue more naturally.
        It would be helpful if it wasn’t headed by a Christian nutter though…

        • Gerrit

           /  February 19, 2018

          As long as that disaffected voter base is 60% for and 40% against, it is not a problem. Would think Labour are working the same numbers.

          Case in point is charter schools. Small numbers for charter schools in the Labour caucus, so they can take a risk and go with the numerical larger anti charter school Labour faction. However the voting public might be split the other way with 60% for 40% against and Labour will be aware of this. Hence a back track on closing them, but let the character remain under tighter state control

          The old story, you cant please all the people all the time.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  February 19, 2018

      Ironically – I found the National Party founding principles quite by chance. They are simple, to the point and not based on idealism :

      https://truebluenz.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/nat-party-principles.png?w=419&h=180

    • PartisanZ

       /  February 19, 2018

      The ‘irony’ goes a bit deeper IMHO … and should maybe be called blatant bare-faced hypocrisy …? Or perhaps unintended paradox?

      In order to “promote good citizenship and self-reliance” you must promulgate beastly, uncaring citizenship, plus forsake and spurn natural human prosocial or interdependent tendencies.

      To combat communism and socialism you need to resort to derivative, perverse or copied Totalitarian State methods – the incorrectly labelled ‘communist’ and ‘socialist’ States, ie surveillance, indoctrination, materialistic and substance addiction, fear addiction etc … and you eventually arrive at Inverted Totalitarianism.

      To maintain ‘freedom of contract’ and encourage private enterprise you must support and encourage cronyism and wealth-power influence like social elitism, Party political donors, lobbyists and ‘Think Tank’ sophistry. There barely exists, in reality, an enterprise that is truly ‘private’ or a contract that is truly ‘free’ …

      To safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership you must deny some individuals the privilege of ownership and/or their individual rights. For instance, the paradox of ‘voluntary’ vs compulsory unionism … one leads to lower wages and more inequality, the other to higher wages and more egalitarianism …

      And to oppose interference by the State in business you must allow business to interfere in the State and more-or-less let industry control the State …

      Its like an politico-economic event horizon …

      • Gezza

         /  February 19, 2018

        Reading it – as posted it – looks very paranoid & reactionary these days.

  3. Blazer

     /  February 19, 2018

    this..’National has never had an underlying belief system, even if a few of its members occasionally stumble across an economic text book. They are committed to keeping Labour out of power but never really sure what to do when they find themselves in office.’.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  February 19, 2018

      Generally pragmatism has been it’s underlying philosophy. They impose sort-of conservative policies without rocking the boat.
      The best right wing government we ever had was the 1984 Labour party…
      Of course if you agree with this, then you cannot also believe in the vast right wing neo-liberal conspiracies that permeate this blog from some quarters.

      • Blazer

         /  February 19, 2018

        Douglas and Prebble hijacked the Labour Party after Muldoon had trashed the economy…they both ended up where they belonged…in ACT.Thatcherism/Reaganomics is an indictment on society,that laid the foundations for todays mess of unpayable debt,and runaway…inflation ,not to mention …massive inequality.

        • Gerrit

           /  February 19, 2018

          It is interesting to read the many social changes bought in over the six years of the fourth Labour government. Very extensive. Worth a read right through to the end.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Labour_Government_of_New_Zealand

          However Labour is only remembered for the financial reforms, not the many new social policies enacted and still on the books today.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 19, 2018

            Well said, Gerrit. Going back to Muldoonism in all aspects would be a horrendous retreat.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  February 19, 2018

            The list of policies and changes really shows how transformative that Government was – it is a shame Lange lost his bottle.

            • Blazer

               /  February 19, 2018

              yes if Lange hadn’t stopped for a cup of tea…NZ would now be an absolute serfdom…instead of only almost…one.

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 19, 2018

              And few here, I suspect, want to go “back to Muldoonism”. That’s just a simple escape-hatch for Righties from uncomfortable discussion … a bit like any critique whatever of extreme or obscene wealth MUST be filthy-rich-penis-envy … and … BYE!!! … remember to pull your rip-cord …

              There’s perfectly salient arguments for State assets like public utilities to remain in public ownership, just as there’s perfectly cogent arguments for ‘free enterprise’ to have ‘mass’ or social responsibilities, since they make their profits from the masses of society …

              I actually disagree with Chris Trotter that the 4th Labour government’s social changes were a bribe or distraction while they railroaded in economic reform …

              I think the social changes were inevitable. They flowed and still do flow in the direction of social justice – though often slowly and with Rightie-built dams in the way [ie cannabis] – like a river of humanity flowing inexorably towards a sea of humanness …

              The economic reform was exactly the opposite, hence the requirement for duplicitous railroading. It was/is a last ditch attempt by corporate-capitalist ruling elites to make water flow uphill – into their hands (as to speak) – and tilt their playing fields further askew from ‘level’ to favour their scoring ‘goals’ …

              That’s why it was and is so dependent on advertising … to get the message across …. “This playing field I’m sliding downwards on right now is really level … It’s level I tell you! … They wouldn’t give me a Golden Handshake if it wasn’t level!”

  4. phantom snowflake

     /  February 19, 2018

    Nicky Hager is claiming to have new evidence that NZ Defence Force, despite their denials, were well aware of the death of a young child in their 2010 raid in Afghanistan.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/02/nicky-hager-claims-explosive-new-evidence-against-defence-force.html

    • Gerrit

       /  February 19, 2018

      This will be a test for the government, especially Ron Marks.

      Question is will the new government place any credence with what Nicky Hager says or kick him into touch.

    • Gezza

       /  February 19, 2018

      Be good to see the reports. Has he released them yet?

      • phantom snowflake

         /  February 19, 2018

        Can’t find any sign that he’s released them yet.

        • Gezza

           /  February 19, 2018

          Its piss poor journalism if no reporter’s asked him that & the answer’s not reported.

    • phantom snowflake

       /  February 19, 2018

      A bit more detail here. It seems that what Hager has is an OIA response which contains information from the reports but doesn’t have the reports themselves.

      https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/02/19/guest-blog-nicky-hager-defence-force-had-reports-of-civilian-casualties-after-sas-raid-but-did-nothing/

      • Gezza

         /  February 19, 2018

        “The 13 February 2018 NZDF OIA response admitted that five New Zealand military intelligence reports written after the SAS raid “mention the death of a child” and also injuries to a woman. The intelligence reports were dated 24 (two), 25 and 26 August 2010, the days following the 22 August 2010 raid, and 27 July 2011.*

        The NZDF letter said the reports of civilian case were “unconfirmed” …”

        That DB article’s a bit messy. Hager got stuff wrong in his book. Be good if he’d release all the relevant docs & info & let everbody see it when he fronts the media with allegations.

        • phantom snowflake

           /  February 19, 2018

          Yes, a poorly written and anonymous article, but there isn’t much else around at this stage. Hager can’t release documents into a vacuum, it’s a matter of whether any of the MSM are interested in picking this up.

          • Gezza

             /  February 19, 2018

            Well NewShub’s picked it up. It might get a mention on three news tonite (but I never watch theirs) Let’s see if he gave them any docs. If he did it might be scoop others will want to pick up on. If he hasn’t, they mightn’t think it worth a story yet. Just interviewing Nicky without some evidence mightn’t be a priority.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  February 19, 2018

              I wasn’t taking ‘Shub seriously as being MSM; they only managed a few sentences in their article I referenced, and it was in the Entertainment section FFS!

            • Gezza

               /  February 19, 2018

              Wcell I guess it’s up to Nicky to call around & say he’s calling a news conference & releasing copies of documents. If he can’t pick up any mainstream news interest from that, he could release them online & notify blogs maybe. Thing is, he certainly got msm interest other times. So maybe he’s not done enuf or got enuf yet?

  5. Zedd

     /  February 19, 2018

    I read that Police are calling for the provision in the Govt. Med-use bill, (that would allow terminally ill patients a defense, on compassionate grounds, to use ‘illicit cannabis’).. to be DELAYED. They say it will be unworkable & could create ‘unintended consequences’, sounds like they still want ‘control’ over this issue.

    Here are a couple of selected lines from the RNZ press release :

    ‘The Health Minister pushed ahead with giving full legal protection to the terminally ill to use cannabis, despite advice from the police asking for that particular provision to be delayed.’

    ‘They show while the police supported giving terminally ill people “reassurance” they would not be prosecuted, in principle, they wanted the statutory defence deferred.’

    Maybe they need to be reminded, it is the Politicians/parliament, that make the laws, they are only employed to implement them !

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  February 19, 2018

      The police are the most powerful and best funded lobby group in the country. As an aside, they are also consistently the worst at complying with OIA requests.

      • Zedd

         /  February 19, 2018

        @AW

        agreed,
        BUT methinks they are, all about ‘Job Protection’ on this whole issue; Status Quo/PROHIBITION, not harm reduction as they claim.. 😦

        Evidence from overseas, proves that the WAR on Drugs has failed & there are much better options; Regulation & Licensed supply/use

      • phantom snowflake

         /  February 19, 2018

        And now they have their chief lobbyist, Greg O’Connor in government. Scary stuff.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  February 19, 2018

          Yes, O’Connor belongs in the “more regulation” Government. No good will come of it.

        • Zedd

           /  February 19, 2018

          Yes I noticed he was one of a number of Labour MPs (8) who voted against the Greens recent bill. Sounds like he is still firmly in the eff. ‘status quo only ‘ camp 😦

          • Gezza

             /  February 19, 2018

            He was cunning enuf before the election to give newspaper interview deviously hinting that after visiting the US & checking out some of their recent cannabis law changes he might be amenable to further discussion & cannabis law reform.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  February 19, 2018

    Clinton coming to NZ. Should be a media love-fest with Jacinda.