Hosking should moderate election debates

I’m not a fan of Mike Hosking. I rarely watch or listen to him or read his opinion pieces.

He has been named as moderator for the 1 News Debates and some on the left are trying to kick up a storm and get him kicked off the debates. For this reason, trying to demand who shouldn’t be involved, I think Hosking should remain as moderator.

In any case he did a good job of moderating debates last election. The opposition to him moderating is just another example of social media pettiness.

Jacinda Ardern has said she doesn’t care who the moderator will be, she will be focussed on her opponent, Bill English. As she should be.

1 News:  TVNZ’s election leaders debate dates and coverage team for September’s vote revealed

Newstalk ZB and Seven Sharp host Mike Hosking will be the moderator for the three televised leaders debates while Breakfast host Jack Tame will lead the Young Voters Debate.

The leaders debates between National Party’s Bill English and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern will take place on August 31 and September 20 at 7pm.

A multi-party debate on September 8 will bring together the potential coalition partners of the major parties, while the young voters debate will take place on September 14.

Action Station have started yet another lame petition:  Replace Mike Hosking as Election Debate Presenter

Please replace Mike Hosking as the host for the upcoming election debates on August 31, September 14 and September 20. Hosking is well known for his aggressively right wing views in his segments as a political commentator. As such, Hosking cannot be trusted to present each candidate fairly in a moderated debate.

Section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

I’m not aware of any evidence or record that should rule Hosking out.

Why is this important?

It is vital that the nationally broadcasted election debates offer an unbiased opportunity for candidates representing their political parties to debate on policies. Mike Hosking’s socially irresponsible style of presenting has led to public campaigns for his removal, notably his comments on Andrew Judd in 2016. Hosking is an inappropriate choice to present the election debates in a fair, unbiased manner.

It’s important that activist groups do not get to dictate who should moderate debates.

This petition is ridiculous. It will probably get a similar number of signatures (actually clicks online) that all the other organised Action Station petitions get.

Standard abuse, same old

Only at The Standard – yesterday I engaged in a bit of discussion (with a Standard moderator) there about the Roy Morgan poll, and OAB jumped in with a typical and deliberately disruptive attack, a game they play often.

One Anonymous Bloke 

🙄

Not fucking your pet goat would be a start.

I quoted site rules “What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.”

That intolerance is very selective.

One Anonymous Bloke

Step away from the goat and pull your pants up.

It’s a metaphor for your relentless weasel negativity and rank nauseating hypocrisy.

Typical irony, given OAB’s record of weasel negativity and hypocrisy.

Then Weka stepped in as moderator and gave OAB some advice on being attacking better.

[I know you see yourself as the frontline rapid attack dog against the RW trolls, but when you start scaring away the cats who are here for the debate (or to play with the mouse), or when you are leaving your dogshit lying around, then there is a problem. You are quite capable of ripping apart RW arguments, so how about you put some effort in.]

And I was told off for responding…

[did you see the moderator warning to you yesterday? By all means engage in escalating a fight with OAB (or anyone) and see how I feel about wasting moderator time – weka]

..and got blamed for ‘escalating a fight’. So I replied:

Weka – I saw your ‘moderator warning’ and responded. So you are blaming me for “escalating a fight” because I pointed out the site rules you asked me to check out yesterday?

Are you suggesting that if attacked here people should do nothing about it?

“in escalating a fight with OAB”, warned about wasting moderator time “don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out” and banned for a day. OAB was also banned for a day but had achieved their objective with weka’s support they have both openly discussed baiting and banning people they don’t like.

Te Reo Putake also tacitly endorsed OAB’s attacks and put the blame on me:

[Give it a rest, Pete. You’ve been around long enough to know you’re heading rapidly toward self martyrdom. No more, please. TRP]

And weka went further, banning me.

[no Pete, I’m saying don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out. If you don’t know what that means then err on the side of caution. You can now take the rest of the day off – weka]

I thought The Standard may have improved a bit but this shows their selective moderation is as bad as ever – some of their moderators are a part of the game. They’re enforcing a ‘don’t complain about being harassed or we’ll ban you’ rule.

TRP is a Labour supporter, weka is a Green supporter. They seem to have a Memorandum of Understanding with OAB that personal attacks are moderator supported behaviour at The Standard, and if you react you will be blamed and may be banned.

This had followed me commenting the previous day on Labour’s conference and their use of social media. Again I had engaged in a discussion with a Standard moderator when weka stepped in.

[There seems to be an implication there that The Standard is connected to the Labour Party organisation. As you well know it’s not, and I don’t care what you now assert about your comment, the implication is still there. Given your substantial history of asserting that there is a connection, and your history of walking the edge of the commenting rules here, I’m going to err on the side of caution and make this a warning. Have a think about the site rules, including the bit about wasting moderator time. – weka]

I responded:

Weka – you are reading something into my comments that wasn’t there. There are usually posts here about Labour conferences so I thought there might be something here about it – as there later was.

There are often posts here about specific Labour Party matters, like conferences. Some of the authors and some of the regular commenters have obvious and open links to Labour. That doesn’t make this a Labour Party website, it’s not, but it’s well known as one with some Labour content. And Green content, and Mana content, and other content.

If a moderator chooses to waste their time they can pretty much pick on anything they like to warn or ban. That’s your call of course. To clarify, are you warning me to not mention Labour here in case someone interprets it as something more than it is?

After yesterday’s exchange weka came back to this:

[no, I’m suggesting you grow some social intelligence and understand that your long history here affects how people interpret your comments, including your history of implying and/or telling lies about the connections between the authors, the site and political parties. IME, you are an expert in riding the edge of the rules to avoid bans but still manage to substantially disrupt the community. But thanks for pointing me back to this from the other thread, more than happy to moderate on the basis of self-martydom so I don’t have to deal with this shit for another week (and a day on top of the other ban) – weka].

Social intelligence – funny.

She accuses me of telling lies but makes things up. I don’t intend to ‘disrupt the community’. There is a history of ‘the community’ – of which weka has been a prominent player – creating disruptions as an excuse to give moderators an excuse to ‘waste their time’ so they can justify a ban. She’s a bit vague but that looks like an extended ban.

Petty and pathetic but that’s how some of them keep playing  it. And the credibility of The Standard as a serious political forum suffers, as does the credibility of the parties associated with those nasty and exclusionary practices.

Standard practice at The Standard.

I think that the bans are, in part at least, preventing any defence of their attacks. Weka is  making things up, and doesn’t have to courage to allow any challenges.

Whale Oil censor in action

Following on from Belt digs deeper where Pete Belt breaks Whale Oil’s ‘1. Explaining is losing’ rule, here’s an example of Belt in action with message control on the blog, deleting comments he doesn’t like.

This is an exchange of comments from the thread on Whale Oil yesterday:

WOBeltMrMan1

Belt damns himself. Here’s the same section now:

WOBeltMrMan

Since Belt became chief moderator/censor Whale Oil has had a distinct lack of tolerance of any comments that are critical, that point out uncomfortable facts, or that clash with their preferred messages.

This is an example of why the comments threads at Whale Oil have become so sanitised and sycophantic.