Media watch – Monday

11 February 2019

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
Leave a comment

32 Comments

  1. David

     /  11th February 2019

    The NZ Herald is going to have to lift its game if its going behind a paywall. Apparently now its racist to identify folk with Asian heritage as Asian, the cafe owner is an Indian so the worker who made the mistake is obviously here illegaly and they wont be tax compliant.
    I would be complaining to the Labour government they have a bit of history in this area and if I got no luck there I would ask their coalition partner.

    Reply
  2. artcroft

     /  11th February 2019

    From the “Some People are so Dumb File” comes this piece of nonsense from Vox. Apparently Finland has just finished an experiment to see whether giving the unemployed a large wodge of “no strings attached” cash each month would cause the recipients to go find a job. Amazingly, and you won’t believe this, but it did not. Never-the-less the author was ecstatic at the results, labelling the whole thing a success because “recipients felt happier and less stressed”.
    Sadly a side study in Venezuela has showed that these results are not replicated at a large scale. In fact quite the reverse occurs. No news on this study at Vox.
    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/9/18217566/finland-basic-income

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  11th February 2019

      Agreed, Arty. Give a cowpoke a months supply of barrel beef, whiskey and women – and he won’t be saddlin his horse to roundup steers on the prairie. Frontier trade and expansion just ain’t encouraged that way… except in that little owlhoot colony called Noo Zeeland.

      They got them a new fang dangled scheme called a ” Regional Slush Fund.’ Run by some
      some fancy slinger with a ‘quick draw mouth.”

      That boy is gonna be called out in 2020.

      But by who? That’s the question, Arty.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  11th February 2019

      Finland wasnt really about what you claim – The Conservative government- the ruling coalition in Finland wanted that to happen…. as cover to what they were doing for all the rest of the unemployed
      “Even before the U.B.I. trial began, the government announced that it would concurrently reform unemployment benefits. What it calls the “activation model” kicked in at the beginning of this year: The measure withholds benefits from unemployed people who, for instance, are thought not to be searching for jobs actively enough —”

      Reply
  3. Or, politicians could learn from the Brexit shambles and handle the legislation changes and referendum sensible and fairly.

    Bridges seems intent on trying to play interference.

    Reply
    • Reply
      • Duker

         /  11th February 2019

        comprehensive Bill – which means what ?
        usual law making process- to achieve what
        solid public engagement- led by the so called Drug Foundation who want to be given taxpayers money
        The NZDF only represents themselves with the usual suspects on its board of trustees

        I notice the self appointed NZDF has had a jump in income this last year of $0.5 mill, but the revenue $7800 from members , is down from last year.
        The Defence Department seems to be a big new ‘sponsor’ and more funding from health ministry for something called ‘whole of school’.
        Living sober website grant is down !

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  11th February 2019

          comprehensive Bill – which means what ?
          Well at a totally random guess you will be able find out exactly what comprehensive reforms it proposes when it is developed and published.

          usual law making process- to achieve what
          Well at another totally random guess to give us a concrete idea on what law changes we are actually voting on in the reeferendum Informing voters on the detail of the legal market we would be voting for or against.

          solid public engagement- led by the so called Drug Foundation who want to be given taxpayers money
          The drug foundation is not leading public engagement. There are far more voices to be heard than theirs …even your own rather confused one.

          The Drug Foundation is involved in more than just the legalize cannabis debate Drug use of all kinds is a immense social issue that impacts all taxpayers so does justify government sponsored groups addressing all the issues it creates.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  11th February 2019

            They are just buzz words …. what they are really saying is ‘give money to us’

            You watch while the DF muscles into this’ space’

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  11th February 2019

              Buzz words?.
              You have used that praise before .
              I dont think it means what you think it means.
              You seem to use it as a touch stone when simple things are outside of your limited ability to comprehend what is said though your biases.

              The ones who write the legislation will have far more input than the drug foundation. The entire spectrum of interested party’s from NORML all the way to family first will have adequate opportunity to have their say.

              As the drug foundation is focused on minimizing the harm from drugs based on our best knowledge it is no surprise to any informed person that they are adding their voice to those who ask for a sane drug policy.

              A factually informed drug policy that minimizes harm rather than our present prohibition approach that criminalizes citizens engenders contempt of law enforcement and allows massive profits to the criminal underworld should be the goal of all who live in the real world .

            • Duker

               /  11th February 2019

              Trouble is the fact based policy informed from from Major US medical research would say that the harms from legalisation arent worth it.
              Youre too young to have this problem , but my peers have had strokes from regular sustained ‘pot smoking’ , young people can have psychosis from using the drug.
              If it was a product we would sell in the supermarket, …well it wouldnt get approval to do so. No need to even test animals to know this.
              The medical benefits are practically zero.

            • Griff.

               /  11th February 2019

              In a supermarket ?
              Well I never ….a straw man .
              So far the majority of places that have legalize cannabis make it available only from dedicated outlets or by mail order. Personally I would much prefer cannabis was sold only in dedicated shops not in food stores or places were piss heads buy their poison .

              I am 55 I have had 4 friends die directly from the effects of alcohol commonly found on supermarket shelves.
              Not one from the effects of cannabis.
              Yet here is some one who claims he known peers who have had strokes from cannabis use.
              The causal link between cannabis use and the increase in risk for strokes is about 0.2% How many thousand cannabis smokers do you know again?.

              Trouble is the fact based policy informed from from Major US medical research would say that the harms from legalisation arent worth it.

              More made up bullshite .
              Legalization does not have a significant effect on usage rates. Most of those that want to use cannabis already do.
              The longest running decriminalized market in the west has usage rates about half ours. The only harm from legalization is to the criminals that make millions off the black market and to the law enforcement that gains resources from persecuting a victimless crime.

            • Duker

               /  11th February 2019

              Yes alcohol is a serious problem, lets replicate that with another mistake we cant undo.
              Guess what , the harm reduction for tobacco involves what ?
              Elimination!
              have you been asleep and havent heard of Smoke Free NZ

  4. Duker

     /  11th February 2019

    Its gone beyond a dog chasing cars, hes now chasing something blowing in the wind

    Government has ‘relationship problem’ with China, Simon Bridges suggests after Air NZ Shanghai-bound flight turned around
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/government-has-relationship-problem-china-simon-bridges-suggests-after-air-nz-shanghai-bound-flight-turned-around?variant=tb_v_1

    so just a paperwork error by the airline means its a government – government problem.

    he just doesnt have a filter – and clearly cant change

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  11th February 2019

      Hang on, I’ll have a read. 😐

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  11th February 2019

        He said we have a “deteriating” relationship with Choina.

        There is no way this man can be allowed to be our next PM & be allowed to go overseas & talk with heads of state. The current one is winceable enuf to listen to as it is, but he would be an absolute aural abomination.

        Also, this particular claim is ludicrous. And to then follow it up with “Oy don’t know, but the question has to be asked” is just dumb.”

        What has he had to say on the government’s decision to fall in line with the US and ban Huawai from involvement with the 5G network here? Would he reverse that decision? Has he said?

        Reply
        • Conspiratoor

           /  11th February 2019

          Would he reverse the Huawei decision. He doesn’t strike me as possessed of a backbone so probably would. But so also would Judith …for different reasons

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  11th February 2019

            National leader Simon Bridges told RNZ this morning that security should be taken seriously, however “if there isn’t the evidence, we should be using [Huawei]”.

            “I have not seen evidence that gives a clear sense in any way, shape or form” that New Zealand should ban Huawei, Mr Bridges said.

            “Huawei is one of the best in the business. Having them there and the commercial tenders that the sparks of this world do, does have a real effect on quality and price.”

            He said the US and China were in a “virtual war, whether it’s trade, whether it’s influence in the Pacific, whether it’s wider – it matters”.

            https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/allowing-huawei-into-nzs-5g-network-very-delicate-call?variant=tb_v_1

            Reply
            • Conspiratoor

               /  11th February 2019

              Gutless. So every country that has found the gonads to ban Huawei are engaged in a ‘virtual war’ with China?

            • Duker

               /  11th February 2019

              Its not a virtual war , China is well known for its nitpicking civil aviation rules.
              Air NZ filed a flight plan with China with one of its widebody types, it changed that when the plane left NZ . It doesnt seem to be one of those things that can be changed at the last minute with new paperwork, some airlines file their flight plans months ahead to ensure they get approval

        • High Flying Duck

           /  11th February 2019

          There was much Twitter chatter about the timing of the Huawei media blitz on the weekend which ran alongside the stories of the Air NZ plane, which had landing clearance when it took off from Auckland, but suddenly didn’t when it was half way to China.
          Coincidence?
          Well probably.

          Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  11th February 2019

          And on queue, a big Whoops from Air NZ:

          Air New Zealand takes blame for administrative blunder that meant Shanghai flight turned around

          A spokeswoman said the aircraft at the centre of yesterday’s problem was new to the route and hadn’t gained the necessary approval.

          Asked whether the Chinese stance had changed, she said: ”No, this was the result of an administrative issue on our end.”

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12202787

          you’re right about things like this making Bridges look foolish. Labour got a lot of scorn (quite rightly) in opposition for using international relations as a domestic lever for electioneering. This smacks of the same tactics and it needs to stop.

          Reply
    • duperez

       /  11th February 2019

      Look to the next time Simon Bridges says, “People aren’t stupid,” trying to build us all up with a little pat on the back for our discernment and intellect. He will.

      Yes Simon, so stop treating as if we’re braindead with such pathetic stuff as implying an AirNZ administrative cock-up means relations between New Zealand and China are down the tubes and there’s an associated implication the Government is to blame and you are The Answer.

      Actually we so aren’t stupid that we recognise such trite politicking is stupid and anyone indulging in it is very, very stupid.

      Reply
  5. High Flying Duck

     /  11th February 2019

    I wonder how NZ perceptions about party affiliation would fare?

    “Democrats Are Wrong About Republicans. Republicans Are Wrong About Democrats.”

    “Blacks made up about a quarter of the Democratic Party, but Republicans estimated the share at 46 percent. Republicans thought 38 percent of Democrats were gay, lesbian or bisexual, while the actual number was about 6 percent. Democrats estimated that 44 percent of Republicans make more than $250,000 a year. The actual share was 2 percent.

    People also overstated the numbers of these stereotypical groups within their own party — Democrats thought 29 percent of their fellow Democrats were gay, lesbian or bisexual — but they weren’t off by as much as members of the other party.

    In short, “the parties in our heads,” as Ahler and Sood write, are not the parties in real life.

    You might say, “This is just one study.” And it is. I suspect that some of these results just show Americans’ innumeracy — most blacks are Democratic-leaning, but most Democratic voters are not black. But I wanted to highlight this research in part because I think it speaks to the political moment we are in, and the study’s findings fit well with other recent research on political polarization. Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, published a book earlier this year that I highly recommend called “Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.” In describing American politics today, she argues that partisan identity (Democrat or Republican) has become a “mega-identity” because it increasingly combines a number of different identities.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  11th February 2019

      Yes , its a US thing . We would find its strange to mark which party affiliation we would have when registering to vote.( Independent is allowed too.)
      It doesnt mean which party you vote for as their political system is much more on the person running, and in some states there are very conservative registered Democrats that in other states would be republicans and vice versa.

      Reply
  6. I see on TV3 news.. ‘Green Fairy’ Rose R. was today discharged without conviction, for cultivating ‘medicinal herbs’ (to supply sick folks).. 🙂 🙂 😀

    Reply

Leave a 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