Are the media critical enough of the Government?

The media, in particular political journalists, are seen as playing a critical role in a healthy democracy, being required to hold politicians and parliaments to account.

While commenters at Kiwiblog are as bitter about media coverage of the Ardern government, commenters at The Standard were as disatisfied with media coverage of the Key Government. It seems you can never please any of the opponents any of the time.

But for most of us do our media do a good enough job of casting a critical eye and pen and camera over the actions of the incumbent government? Media certainly earn some criticism, but that not just from the public, it also comes from politicians being criticised.

A few days ago the Government announced an initial support package for media, who were struggling to compete with online megacompanies for revenue before the Covid-19 pandemic struck, and now have been hit by a major business pause and another major drop in advertising revenue. Even before the support package a lot of advertising revenue was from the Government via Covid messages.

Going by comments at Kiwiblog (noting that there they are dominated by strongly anti-Government views) one might think that the support package makes the media a paid-for extension of Government public relations. They represent just a small but vocal right wing minority never happy with a left leaning government is in power – and again yesterday in response to a post ridiculing a ridiculous president comments predictably swung to ‘but Biden’, ‘but Clinton’, ‘but Obama’, ‘but Ardern’ (they are well indoctrinated by Trump’s anti ‘fake news’/critical media diversions).

It’s always easy to find things to criticise about the media in general – too much over sensationalising and too much ‘click bait’ trivia were problems long before Covid.

Media have a very important role to play in a democracy, which is why in 1787 Edmund Burke said (from Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship):

“There were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

Political journalists have difficult jobs to do. They spend a lot of time with a few politicians and risk getting too personally affected. And they constantly have to battle against ex-journalists now working in large politician defending PR departments.

Jacinda Ardern has had an unusually good ride with journalists, quite a few of whom are fellow females of a similar age or younger, so empathy with Ardern probably came naturally.

But John Key was popular with media too – he was also easy to get on with and he could be entertaining in an often dour field. Helen Clark had a lot to overcome in her early years as Labour leader but became widely admired (most of the time) in her job as Prime Minister for nine years.

Media tend to favour the people in power, incumbent Governments, in part simply because that’s who the biggest stories come from.

But media also have a tendency to hunt in a vicious-looking pack when they smell political blood, no matter who the victim. One problem is that if some media get their teeth into a big and damaging story the rest tend to join the frenzy because that’s where the attention grabbing stories come from. David Lange referred to this media mob mentality as “demented reef fish”.

Media will never do enough for everyone, and will never do any good for those wallowing in opposition to the current government.

Are media critical enough of our politicians and our Government? Or as well as could be expected in the circumstances?

Even if seen as poor at times, the alternative to inadequate political journalism – no political journalism – is far worse.

Are media critical enough of our Government and politicians?

Are we too critical of media?

 

RNZ propose dumping Concert programme and targeting ‘youth’

Someone at RNZ thinks it is a good idea to turn off an older audience and cater for younger people by dumping the Concert programme (and 17 staff), and converting to something targeting a younger audience (who tend to live online).

This has stirred up protest by older people, including Kiri Te Kanawa and Helen Clark.

RNZ: RNZ set to cut back Concert and launch new youth service

In the biggest overhaul of its music services in years, RNZ is planning to cut back its classical music station RNZ Concert and replace it on FM radio with music for a younger audience as part of a new multimedia music brand. Mediawatch asks RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson and music content director Willy Macalister to explain the move.

The broadcaster is proposing to remove RNZ Concert from its FM frequencies and transform it into an automated non-stop music station which will stream online and play on AM radio.

It would be replaced on FM by a service aimed at a younger, more diverse audience as part of a new multimedia “music brand”.

RNZ Concert would be taken off FM radio on May 29 and the youth platform would be phased in ahead of its full launch on August 28.

RNZ’s music staff were informed about the proposed changes this morning in an emotional, occasionally heated meeting with the RNZ music content director Willy Macalister, head of radio and music David Allan, and chief executive Paul Thompson.

According to documents for staff, the move would eliminate 17 jobs at RNZ Music, including all RNZ Concert presenter roles, from late March.

Those would be replaced with 13 jobs at the new youth platform, while four remain in the downsized RNZ Concert service and RNZ Music in Wellington.

The documents for staff say the proposed changes are aimed at securing new audiences for RNZ.

While its listenership is predominantly Pākehā and skewed towards older people, the new music brand would target people aged 18 to 34, including Māori and Pasifika audiences, the proposal says.

If they are after new audiences, why not ditch news and current affairs programmes and replace them with talk back about trivial topics?

Why not ditch radio altogether and switch to streaming? That’s where the growth in audiences is.

Some dismay has been expressed.

Stuff: Axing of Concert FM ‘disenfranchising’ for older RNZ listeners

According to RNZ, the weekly cumulative audience for RNZ Concert is 173,300 – or 4 per cent of the population aged 10+.

A Facebook group named Save RNZ Concert had more than 5000 members, and a change.org petition had more than 2000 signatures as of Friday morning.

Arts Centre of Christchurch chairwoman and the former chairwoman of Christchurch Symphony Orchestra, Felicity Price, said it was a “bizarre decision”.

“To sack all its engaging hosts and use taxpayers’ money to instead set up an Auckland radio/online radical sharing alternative that would be more appealing to the non-white youth market is simply absurd, short-sighted and surely in breach of its charter of ‘reflecting New Zealand’s cultural identity’ and ‘recognising the interests of all age groups’,” she said.

Many Concert FM listeners were elderly and enjoyed interacting with the presenters. Having an automated service would disenfranchise that sector of society, she said.

University of Canterbury senior lecturer Patrick Shepherd said there was a ground-swell of protest against the proposal.

“The musical community are up in arms and I think rightly so … Having a contemporary and classical music station doesn’t make the books balance but as a society we want that there because it has value in our community and is a vital part of our culture. It’s like closing down an art gallery because not enough people are going there,” he said.

Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi said he was working on a plan to address concerns raised by “loyal listeners”.

He met with RNZ’s chief executive and chairman last week and “made some concerns clear to them” about aspects of the plan.

A spokesman for Faafoi said the concerns were reminding RNZ of its charter and ensuring it understood the feedback of all listeners.

The organisation was struggling to attract a youth audience, and the proposed youth station was one way to address that.

They may still struggle to attract a youth audience, and turn off the audience they currently have.

Stuff: Dame Kiri te Kanawa calls RNZ proposal to dial down Concert an ‘inestimable blow to the arts’

New Zealand opera legend Dame Kiri te Kanawa is leading the chorus of outrage over a proposal that will gut RNZ Concert in favour of a youth-focused radio station.

In a statement, the world-renowned opera singer said losing the station would be “an inestimable blow to the arts in New Zealand”.

“So many of our young artists have become known to a wide audience thanks to broadcast on RNZ Concert. I sincerely hope that the powers that be in RNZ will reconsider the backward step announced in the media today.”

Clark, who held the arts and culture portfolio during her nine years as prime minster, said the decision was a “severe diminution of the cultural services available to New Zealanders”.

“The plans to decimate the Concert programme need to be seen in the context of the National Library no longer wanting to have an overseas collection and the National Archives deciding to drastically reduce its opening hours,” she said.

“What will be next? Such decisions raise serious concern about the level of support for cultural services available to New Zealanders.”

NZ Herald: Former Prime Minister Helen Clark wants Ministers to scrap plans to ditch Concert FM

She tagged Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi in the tweet.

Clark even went as far as saying there was a “pattern here of destruction of cultural services available to New Zealanders”.

In response, Robertson said he was looking into the issue.

“I am advised it is still a consultation and we will be talking to RNZ about their options.”

Speaking to media this morning, Faafoi said he was also looking at ways to mitigate some issues around Concert FM.

Faafoi said that he met with RNZ’s board last week and outlined some of his concerned about the proposed move.

Maybe it’s an RNZ decision and not up to the Government, but I guess the current Labour leadership can just blame this u-turn on NZ First.

Save RNZ Concert on Facebook now has 6,910 members.

The Minister, please Save RNZ Concert AND fund the new youth network petition currently has 4,083 signatures.

 

Helen Clark Foundation report: Harmful Content on Social Networks

Helen Clark backs Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch call: ‘All key players should be there’

Former prime minister Helen Clark says those who aren’t attending the “incredibly important” Christchurch call meeting in Paris are saying more about themselves than the summit itself.

Speaking to Stuff ahead of releasing a report on reducing social media harm from her new think tank, Clark said the call was a “huge deal” and “all the key players should be there”.

“I think this says more about the people who are not going than the call itself. It’s an incredibly important call and why would those people not be there. That’s what will get the interest,” Clark said.

She said getting an issue like this on the table at a G7 meeting was “unprecedented” for New Zealand and praised Ardern for carrying on momentum.

“I think that New Zealand is going to be defined not the by the horrific attack itself, but he way she has responded. New Zealand is making a significant statement about who it is and what needs to be done locally and globally.”

The Helen Clark Foundation report key recommendation:

We recommend a legislative response is necessary to address the spread of terrorist and harmful content online. This is because ultimately there is a profit motive for social media companies to spread ‘high engagement’ content even when it is offensive, and a long standing laissez faire culture inside the companies concerned which is resistant to regulation.


Harmful Content on Social Networks

Executive Summary

Anti-social media: reducing the spread of harmful content on social media networks

  • In the wake of the March 2019 Christchurch terrorist attack, which was livestreamed in an explicit attempt to foster support for white supremacist beliefs, it is clear that there is a problem with regard to regulating and moderating abhorrent content on social media. Both governments and social media companies could do more.
  • Our paper discusses the following issues in relation to what we can do to address this in a New Zealand context; touching on what content contributes to terrorist attacks, the legal status of that content, the moderation or policing of communities that give rise to it, the technical capacities of companies and police to
    identify and prevent the spread of that content, and where the responsibilities for all of this fall – with government, police, social media companies and individuals.
  • We recommend that the New Zealand Law Commission carry out a review of laws governing social media in New Zealand. To date, this issue is being addressed in a piecemeal fashion by an array of government agencies, including the Privacy Commission, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Internal Affairs, and Netsafe.
  • Our initial analysis (which does not claim to be exhaustive) argues that while New Zealand has several laws in place to protect against the online distribution of harmful and objectionable content, there are significant gaps. These relate both to the regulation of social media companies and their legal obligations to reduce
    harm on their platforms and also the extent to which New Zealand law protects against hate speech based on religious beliefs and hate motivated crimes.
  • The establishment of the Royal Commission into the attack on the Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019 (the Royal Commission) will cover the use of social media by the attacker. However the Government has directed the Royal Commission not to inquire into, determine, or report in an interim or final way on issues related to social media
  • platforms, as per the terms of reference.As a result, we believe that this issue – of social media platforms – remains outstanding, and in need of a coordinated response. Our paper is an initial attempt to scope out what this work could cover.
  • In the meantime, we recommend that the Government meet with social media companies operating in New Zealand to agree on an interim Code of Conduct, which outlines key commitments from social media companies on what actions they will take now to ensure the spread of terrorist and other harmful content is caught quickly and its further dissemination is cut short in the future. Limiting access to the livestream feature is one consideration, if harmful content can genuinely not be detected.
  • We support the New Zealand Government’s championing of the issue of social media governance at the global level, and support the ‘Christchurch Call’ pledge to provide a clear and consistent framework to address the spread of terrorist and extremist content online.

Helen Clark was interviewed about this on Q&A last night.

 

Nash supports Clark on compassionate approach to addiction, but cannabis company collapses

Agreeing with Helen Clark, Police Minister Stuart Nash promotes “A more restorative, compassionate and health-focussed approach to addiction, rather than treating all addicts as criminals, is, in my view, the only way we are going to deal effectively with the problem.”

But the lure of cannabis as a money maker has already had a casualty as a cannabis company fails.

Ardern ranked 29th ‘most powerful woman’ in 2018

Forbes have ranked New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as the 29th most powerful woman in the world for 2018. While Ardern obviously has significant power in New Zealand her world-wide power is not obvious to me.

And ‘power’ is not necessarily a positive – Theresa May is ranked second. She seems to have the power to make a mess of things in the UK, and this has major implications for Europe in particular.

Forbes: Power Women 2018

Change is rippling through the business, tech, entertainment, philanthropical and political spheres alike. The 2018 World’s 100 Most Powerful Women list celebrates the icons, innovators and instigators who are using their voice to change power structures and create a lasting impact.

This year, the 15th annual list welcomes 20 newcomers, but what’s notable is who’s moved out, up and down, making way for emerging leaders who are redefining the chief seat and bringing others along with them. We see more change ahead.

It isn’t surprising to see Angela Merkel ranked number 1 – but she recently indicated she won’t stand again for leadership in Germany.

I haven’t heard of most women on the list. Here are some:

  1. Angela Merkel (Germany)
  2. Theresa May (UK)
  3. Christine Lagarde (France)
  4. Mary Barra (USA)
  5. Abigail Johnson (USA)
  6. Melinda Gates (USA)
  7. Susan Wojcicki (USA)
  8. Ana Patricia Botín (Spain)
  9. Marillyn Hewson (USA)
  10. Ginni Rometty (USA)

A few further down:

2. Oprah Winfrey (USA)

23 Queen Elizabeth II (UK)

24. Ivanka Trump (USA)

29. Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand)

30. Gina Rinehart(Australia)

The blurb on Ardern:

“New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern continues to be a fresh voice, advocating for families and normalising working parenthood by bringing her daughter and stay-at-home partner to the UN General Assembly”

  • Ardern set new norms as a government leader when she gave birth, took six weeks maternity leave and shared that her partner will be a stay-at-home dad.
  • She said she is using her platform to “create a path for other women” to follow in her footsteps.
  • Rising to power on a tide of “Jacindamania,” at 38, she is the youngest female leader in the world and New Zealand’s youngest PM in 150 years.
  • As leader of the Labour Party, she promises an “empathetic” government, with ambitious plans to tackle climate change and child poverty.
  • In July she announced welfare reforms including a weekly stipend for new parents and an increase in paid parental leave from 18 to 22 weeks.

However Ardern is being criticised in New Zealand for her actions not coming close to living up to her rhetoric.

Helen Clark has been ranked on the list over the years…

  • 2004 – 43rd
  • 2016 – 22nd (most powerful woman in the United Nations)

…but dropped right off it in 2017.

NZ Herald: Jacinda Ardern named among world’s most powerful women

Ardern is one spot higher than Australia’s richest citizen Gina Rinehart, and above some big names such as Beyonce, at number 50, and Taylor Swift, at number 68. Queen Elizabeth is just spots above her at number 23.

Funny that NZH should compare Ardern to celebrities.

Also featured on the list at number 91 is Ana Brnabic, the first female and first openly gay Prime Minister of Serbia, and Zewde Sahle-Work at number 97, the first female president of Ethiopia.

But Serbia (population 7 million) and Ethiopia (population 105 million) are in parts of the world that aren’t so important to a US magazine.

 

Helen Clark and Ruth Dreifuss on decriminalising drugs

Recent coverage of the failure of the ‘war on drugs’ continues on Nation this morning.

Yesterday on Breakfast:

The coalition government has promised a referendum on legalising cannabis, but what about decriminalising all drugs?

The Global Commission on Drug Policy members Helen Clark and former Swiss President Ruth Dreifuss told Jack Tame how doing so would reduce harm and regulate black markets out of existence.

From Newsweek:

The global “war on drugs” is a “spectacular” failure that has led to thousands of murders, public health crises and human rights abuses, a new report showed.

Released on Monday, the report from the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), a global coalition of 170 nongovernmental organizations working on drug policy issues, overviewed the failure of the 10-year global strategy from the United Nations, which intended to eradicate the illicit drug market by next year.

Instead of curbing the problem, “consumption and illegal trafficking of drugs have reached record levels,” Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand and a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, wrote in the report’s foreword.

This morning on Newshub Nation:

Emma Jolliff asks former Prime Minister and former President of Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss if decriminalising all drugs could reduce harm, and what New Zealand can learn from other countries.

 

Q+A: Helen Clark on why NZ should give up the war on drugs

On Q+A last night Helen Clark talked about why New Zealand should give up on the war on drugs.

“I support the New Zealand Drug Foundation on this, and their position is that there should be a binding referendum in 2020.”

I’d prefer to see a binding referendum before the 2020 election (and that could be done in early 2020). It is important enough to be dealt with on it’s own, without the distraction of a general election. This means having legislation written and agreed in Parliament to put to the referendum for approval or rejection before that.

The Greens have a confidence and supply agreement with Labour to have a referendum before or alongside the 2020 general election.

This isn’t new from Clark. In March 2018: War on drugs has failed – Helen Clark

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark says a bill that would quadruple the maximum prison sentence for people supplying synthetic cannabis reflects a failed war on drugs mentality.

National MP Simeon Brown’s bill would extend the maximum prison term for supplying synthetic cannabis from two years to eight.

It passed its first reading at Parliament last night – supported by National and New Zealand First MPs.

At a conference on drugs at Parliament today, Ms Clark, who is a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, said the global war on drugs had failed, with devastating consequences for individuals.

Ms Clark said the proposed synthetic cannabis law change was more of the same.

“That is heading in the war on drugs direction which isn’t going to work – but going to a select committee to a bill is one thing, what will come out the other end.

“And I think all the people who know about drug policy, who know what’s happening around the world, need to come to the (select) committee and spell it out how it is.”

Ms Clark said it was time for New Zealand to have a fresh look at its drug policy.

“We have to look at the evidence of what works – and if we looked at Portugal or to Switzerland or any number of countries now we see more enlightened drug policies, which are bringing down the rate of death and not driving up prison populations.”

Full Q+A interview:

 

“If we look at penal policy, clearly it’s failed.”

“I’m personally totally opposed to three strikes and you’re out, I think that’s a ridiculous approach.”

On drug reform:

“That would be the gold standard, to go to the Portuguese model, which is decriminalisation surrounded by massive harm reduction measures.

“New Zealand innovated more than thirty years ago with the needle exchange scheme, and we did that because it was absolutely essential to stop the spread of HIV aids.

“But we haven’t really done much in all the years since, and if we look at what Canada is now doing, you have safe consumption spaces where people who inject drugs are able to inject in safety where their drugs are tested, and also in a number of countries much readier access to the anti-overdose drug Naxolone, which WHO says should be in the hands of anyone likely to witness an overdose.

“So I have no doubt that we could do much better, and we need to look at what’s Norway doing, what’s Canada doing, what’s Portugal doing, who’s doing things that are working.”

Corin Dann: “Again though where does leadership come in here, because this current Government has said they would look at a referendum, but then there’s no guarantee they would act on that referendum. It seems to me that once again politicians are very nervous about leading on this issue. What should they do?”

Clark:

“Well I support the New Zealand Drug Foundation on this, and their position is that there should be a binding referendum in 2020. and for it to be binding you need to prepare the legislation beforehand so people know what they are voting on and you can have an informed debate.

“In referendums the question is always the question, and it needs to be simple, but if it’s a simple yes/no around a law that’s been passed and will be activated by a ‘yes’ vote, that becomes clearer to explain.”

I hope she convinces Jacinda Ardern and Labour on this.

Passing legislation next year that is subject to a binding referendum in early 2020, months in advance of the general election is do-able and should be a no-brainer if Parliament is prepared to lead on this and address what is currently a very poor situation on drugs.

“The current policies aren’t working”.

Do you think the public feels that?

“Yes I do, but I also think what has changed is that around the world we’re seeing a lot of movement on these issues. Certainly on cannabis decriminalisation and even legalisation in US states and Canada and European jurisdictions.

And in the area of the other illicit drugs we’re also seeing a lot of innovation around harm reduction measures. So I think follow the evidence, see what’s working.

Portugal in the mid-late nineties, when it went down this road, had the highest rate of drug related deaths in all of Western Europe. Today it has the lowest, so clearly they’ve got something right.

Decriminalisation or legalisation is the approach that Portugal and others take, but they then have regulation.

Now New Zealand did try regulation of some psycho-active drugs back in 2013, then for whatever reason it got dropped like a hot cake the following year, but I think it is worth going back and looking at the principle of that with respect to that particular group of drugs.

That refers to the legislation promoted by Peter Dunne, passed by Parliament but then dumped by National when they panicked after bad media.

The global drug commission that I’m on will be bringing out a new report in September that will be talking about legalisation AND regulation, you have to have regulation, and you have to have major harm reduction measures.

If Ardern really wants to demonstrate that her Government is truly progressive then they will address drug policies that are currently failing badly.

Minister of Health David Cl;ark seems to have been given the responsibility for dealing with this, and he has seemed tol be far from progressive, he is more conservative, and doesn’t seem keen to lead on it.

 

 

Helen Clark free to speak

Helen Clark has spoke up about a number of issues lately, and she tends to get media coverage. She has also been criticised and ridiculed by some.

A first term National MP had a swipe:

Tau is right, Clark has as much right as anyone – Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, John Key, you or me – to speak as she sees fit. That she gets more coverage than most is just lucky for her – or unlucky if she cops well informed counter arguments.

Hating and nasty attacks and abuse are things Clark will be well used to, it has been an unfortunate feature of political dialogue for a long time.

I think we should welcome the views of former prime Ministers, and former MPs, in political debates.

One of the critical aspects of free speech is the freedom to not hear, to not read, and to ignore.

Communism by stealth, or ‘Corporate-Capitalist Welfare by design’?

PartisanZ saved me the trouble of stating this topic:


Matthew Hooton: ‘Communism by stealth’ is here – NZHerald

“Infamously, Key then entrenched Working for Families as Prime Minister, and Ardern and Robertson have further locked in middle-class dependency with their December 2017 Families Package.

In fact in 2004, the left-wing critique of Working for Families was stronger than Key’s, that it would operate as a subsidy of low-paying employers.

That is, using Key’s original numbers, if there was a job to do worth $60,000 a year, an employer could hire someone with two kids, pay them just $38,000 a year, and they’d end up with almost the same pay in the hand.”

It’s an interesting and convoluted argument, demonstrating, IMHO, that we are no longer involved in a Left-vs-Right contest but merely exist on a neoliberalism continuum where the challenge is how to make the failed economic paradigm ‘appear’ to be working …

It’s not really about an actual economic paradigm. It’s about the ‘semblance’ of an economic paradigm. About trying to prove the mirage is the reality. I believe we need to find a coherent, comprehensible name for this phenomenon because it affects us all, whether we want a UBI or vehemently oppose it.

‘Simuliberalism’* perhaps? The similitude or simulation of neoliberalism?

“And don’t expect National to be able to do anything about it. With the financial status of so many working families now as locked in to welfare as any other beneficiary, abolishing Working for Families is becoming ever-more politically impossible.

It has transferred the primary economic relationship that determines family income from being that with the employer to that with the state. It is indeed communism by stealth. Clark and Cullen knew exactly what they doing when they set it up.”

Whatever it is, it certainly IS NOT communism … since the means of production aren’t owned by the State on behalf of its citizens … they remain largely in private hands pushing wealth upwards towards the very few … and this means it CANNOT BE communism by stealth.

Corporate-Capitalist Welfare by design more likely … Simuliberalism?

 

Ray Avery versus Helen Clark

Helen Clark has been involved in a stoush with Ray Avery over a proposed charity concert at Eden Park on Waitangi Day next year.

RNZ: Helen Clark fires back at Sir Ray Avery

Helen Clark says Sir Ray Avery has adopted a “bullying approach” after she voiced opposition to a charity concert he wants to hold at Eden Park.

Ms Clark lives about 400m from the stadium where Sir Ray hopes put on a Live Aid-style concert to raise funds for premature babies.

The former prime minister called the proposal a Trojan horse that would pave the way for more concerts at the venue.

Sir Ray, formerly named New Zealander of the year, countered that she was engaging in “petty politics” on an issue that involved saving children’s lives

Ms Clark told Checkpoint with John Campbell that she was merely exercising her rights as a Mt Eden resident, pointing out that there were many alternative venues for the event.

“I guess my point is, how does this make the ordinary citizen around Eden Park feel that if you put your head up and oppose something that a prominent New Zealander wants that you’re going to be savaged in the media and called all sorts of things?”

She compared Sir Ray’s remarks to those of a social media troll.

“There’s a particular type of troll on [sites like Twitter] which pretty much falls into line with the rather bullying approach that Mr Avery has adopted.

“Now, he’s probably picked the wrong person to try to bully in directly attacking me.”

Avery has been interviewed on the Nation this morning.

Sir Ray Avery apologises to Helen Clark if he has come across as a bully, but also said said Clark’s position on the Eden Park concert is “morally wrong”

…says the international act coming to his charity concert is “huge” and a male act

Avery says that the cost of bringing in a high profile international act was huge so they needed a venue of the size of Eden Park to cover costs and raise money.

There seems to be a strong group of Nimbys who are staunchly against anything musical (apart from sports event clips) at Eden Park.

I suspect Clark may regret making an issue of this, but she is in an awkward position being anti noise at Eden Park, so make find it difficult to support the charity and concert.

Just one concert doesn’t seem like a big deal. It’s understandable for opponents to fear that it could open the floodgates and rock the neighbourhood, but the ‘not in my backyard’ protests can be a bit too precious about protecting a quiet way of life for themselves in the middle of a large city.