Wow, the Press Gallery really felt bitter about backing Grant Robertson didn’t they?

51
0

lede

I started the daily blog in the wake of the 2012 Labour Party conference. I was very close to Cunliffe at the time and had been pestering him constantly during the conference about whether or not he would push a challenge against David Shearer as the blogs had been advocating when the membership changed the voting rules. His response surprised me, it was a flat out no with a very impassioned, ‘I am a servant to the Party’ styled justification.

This was annoying and frustrating. Unfortunately for the blogger in me, there would be no scoop because David Cunliffe was far too principled to launch a coup against Shearer. The disappointment quickly evaporated into jaw dropping shock as I watched Patrick Gower manufacture a false narrative about a leadership coup and crucified Cunliffe on the 6pm News. I know there was no coup because I was the one sitting on Cunliffe’s elbow saying, “you should take out Shearer’ and Cunliffe was point blank refusing to do that.

Watching Cunliffe then get punished for that loyalty was a burning injustice that inspired my decision to gather together the best bloggers the left have and put them all on one site to review the news daily in an attempt to give the other side of the story to the one the mainstream media manufacture.  If Gower could deliberately spike a story and twist it that far from reality, then what hope for a well informed citizenry to engage with the civic  issues of our day?

This counter narrative seems more important to the NZ media landscape than ever before. The current level of negative bias being exhibited by the conservative corporate media towards David Cunliffe suggests National’s infamous Australian consultants, Crosby-Textor, have suddenly gained editorial staff positions on every branch of broadcasting.

We have a right wing corporate media machine staffed by people who benefit from the tax cut policies of National. They are the same professional club of mates and drinking buddies whose symbiotic relationship with political power goes beyond the professional necessities of gaining access to information, it is a spiritual connection that generates a journalistic gag reflex that always benefits National’s mythology of hard work individual responsibility and everything else as Politically Correct socialist fascism.

The shrill beige brigade of Hosking, Garner, Henry, Espiner, Plunket, Gower are joined by Farrar and hate speech merchant Cameron Slater to provide one vast unbroken, uncritical narrative of how great John Key is and how awful and tricky that David Cunliffe is.

John Key has overseen the largest erosion of civil liberties this country has witnessed since the Waterfront lockouts, he has borrowed billions in tax cuts for the rich, he continues to negotiate a free trade deal with America that is not in NZs best interests, he has used beneficiary bashing as a distraction tactic, he has implemented more corporate welfare, privatised more social services and he has mutilated our economic sovereignty  by flogging off our energy assets. The media’s presentation of our vacant aspiration $200million dollar Hawaiian Mansion Prime Minister however is a laid back good bloke we all want to have a beer with around the BBQ.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

David Cunliffe on the other hand has attempted to push for funding for young families and education, use the function of the State to intervene when the market fails, apologised for NZs horrific domestic violence stats while calling time on the 30 year neo-liberal experiment. The media presentation of Cunliffe however is a deceptive, tricky klutz who hates real men, who hid a $100 000 bottle of wine that never existed, who hates real men, who hid a $15 000 book that never existed, who hates real men, who hid $150 000 donations that never existed, all the while hating real men.

The media caricatures of Key and Cunliffe are so grossly disconnected from reality, they make North Korean TV and Fox News look gay friendly and progressive.

Looking at Vernon Small’s latest ludicrous column where he cooks the stats to claim Labour would be better off without Cunliffe, it really does sink in how bitter the Wellington Press Gallery  who called the Labour leadership for Grant Robertson are at Cunliffe. They seem to have a gatekeepers grudge which will always be critical of Cunliffe in a way they never will be with Key.

There will of course be those who will scream that the NZ Herald is left wing, that TVNZ is liberal propaganda, and that Whaleoil is the best news site in NZ. I’d suggest those very same voices think Obama’s health care program is socialism, Israeli massacres of civilians are justifiable and that the death penalty should not only be re-instated, but executions carried out live on late night TV.

In short, only redneck fucktards claim the media are left wing in NZ.

With a survey out this week reminding us that 83% of all New Zealanders watch traditional television every day, it’s no wonder the media generated hate figure of Cunliffe results in poll ratings as low as they currently are.  

How does this change? The criticism won’t. These corporate media pundits and Press Gallery cheerleaders will get more shrill and create the sort of dog whistle headlines aimed to appeal to National’s raw meat chewing banjo playing electorate. This weeks ‘Will Labour force good white volk to learn that Maori language thing’ story was a great example, and even when Labour do something ethical and bold like banning cosmetic testing on animals, the Herald still frames it as ‘Labour reassures makeup users on testing ban’. What will change however is the media will be forced to provide a platform for Cunliffe and Labour to fight on.

Voters who have written Cunliffe off based on the media generated bias will be forced to challenge those views when they see him in action on the campaign trail and in the all essential debates.

If their boy Key does fail to win a majority, watch how quickly the media will start proclaiming Cunliffe and Labour have no mandate to govern. Even if Labour win, they will never get a break from the rightwing  media and they shouldn’t expect one.

If Cunliffe leads the country after September 20th, a better Public Broadcasting policy needs to be in his top 5 list.

51 COMMENTS

  1. The power elites and the media have so much invested in this Key National government that if the left win the election, I believe we would be in for a very unstable period. There is no way the right will sit back and accept a left wing coalition. Legal challenge,recount,hanging chads,a coup? Whatever!
    Worth a vote for the left just to see the cat getting among the pigeons.

    • One has to wonder what secret plans National has in store for us if it obtains a clear majority on its own. When National does not have to depend on a coalition partner for confidence votes then it loses all restraint and we could be in for another massive amount of privatization and corporatisation. Beware the smiling assassin.

  2. Ok here’s a conspiracy theory with little or no evidence to support it.
    Still don’t think the polls are right. But have caused major drop in perception of LP credibility.
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/
    If they can do this to the internet, they can do it to phone-lines. So not without the realms of possibility. The left are being torn apart by unfair strategies and strategists supported by big money and 5Eyes to keep these countries Right and therefore supportive of US, big banks control of the world. But if that is the case then real democracy is under threat
    Roy Morgan polling also shows there is a high concern about inequality in NZ. Why then would most of the people polled say they would vote for Nats? Doesn’t make sense.

  3. I share your anger, Martyn, and frustration. It’s the deliberate and relentlessness of the campaign against Cunliffe that gets me, and I;m not a Labour party member. I keep hoping that the voting public will see through it, but I fear not. I despair when work colleagues tut tut about the effect the current government has on the welfare of the vulnerable we work with, but then they say they can’t be bothered to vote. Unfortunately perception is everything these days and the picture painted ain’t pretty, even if it is a very ugly distortion, that’s what people are seeing

    • I hope you tell your work colleagues that by not voting they then support john key and the national party regime they dislike. Thats what john key is hoping for, and thats what kept him in power last time, low voter turnout. Vote to vote john key out.

  4. Perhaps you should read Chris Trotter’s piece on this site on the topic of Small’s article. You seem to be doing precisely what Chris warns of; shooting the messenger.

    I do not think Chris could be described as a ‘red necked fucktard’. Perhaps you and others on the left should listen more to what Chris has to say. Curiously he has the great respect of commentators on both the right and left.

    As one who would love to have a reason to vote Labour I agree with much of what Chris has to say.

    I read both right and left wing blogs and in the same way I seek out arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. In this way I believe I can make some sort of informed judgement.

    When I am dismissed as a ‘red necked fucktard’ by a Labour supporter because I read Slater and Farrar it just makes me think that perhaps the Labour Party is not for me. Whatever one may think of Slater I do not recall his having described a member of the left as a fucktard.

    • If Cunliffe was not the leader there would have been tailor made smear campaigns supported by the media for whoever else it was. Labour were not ready for US styled bullshit politics. I mean National make the Will Ferrell film “The Campaign” look like a serious documentary!

      The only criticism I can think can be levelled at him was to ignore the smears instead of fighting back much earlier. But in the terms of substance and what is affecting NZ that hardly rates.

      • Totally agree. Whoever the leader would have been subject to this.
        There really isn’t anything he could have down about it or anyone else for that matter. Even Grant Robertson would be reeling by now if he were the leader. This has been written about before and possible strategies discussed. But what strategies can you use to stop bullying? It’s the news media (presstitutes) running with the stories in such a detrimental and unbalanced way. Someone powerful must be supporting them to do this. They aren’t that unprofessional or stupid usually – are they?

    • Read it again. He doesn’t label anyone for the fact that they read Farrar or Slater. He says that of anyone who thinks the MSM are left wing.

  5. When I went to journalism school in the 70s we were taught to be politically balanced in our presentations and to always be sceptical of political claims and rhetoric. It seems that sometime over the last 40 years the right have taken control of such training. Gone are the days when Radio New Zealand’s Don Rood went out on a ship into the Mururoa Exclusion zone and got arrested for live courage of the arrest of protestors. Nowadays the Radio NZ news editors would probably go and assist the French to do the arrests, that is if they even could be bothered to get off their chuffs and venture outside the office.

  6. Great article Martyn and very interesting to hear your comments about Cunliffe’s attitude to toppling Shearer.

    The more I see of the press gallery the more I think they must live on a different planet.

  7. What baffles me is why 83% of New Zealand’s watch tv everyday. It f##king rubbish and getting worse.

  8. Yep, all that matters is selfies in a soft top Mustang in Hawaii and beers around the barbie with the PM witnessing this election.

    Yet one of the big arse elephants in the room is our so called booming economy.

    Consider the 3 major pillars of this economy;

    1. The Christchurch rebuild, controlled or better phrased micromanaged by the National Party in Wellington.

    It’s the only growth part of the economy National have any real influence over apart from asset sales and its glacial slow. So slow that in 2014 Labour have policies to address the inaction. But if National can hold on to this as long as they can and drag it out it contributes to growth even if the people of Christchurch suffer as a result.

    2. The dairy sector. Milk solid prices are in decline by quite a decent amount since Feb 2014 and worse Fonterra’s lack of attention to ensuring their products are perfect every-time and our governments laissez-faire approach have seen the competition slowly but surely gain on them. Western countries who not only are making a better job of their products but also are doing them cleaner, and with serious government oversight. Danone the French dairy giant is setting up manufacturing here to ensure the products are right the first time and are dispensing with Fonterra. The high tide in our diary industry has passed in NZ.

    3. The Auckland housing market, a bubble now supported by nothing more than speculation. This week it was shown that the growth in rents are being left far behind by the cost of buying houses. The reason is that NZ’s intentional low wage economy cannot support unreal growth. Commercial property is similarly inflating and the potential long-term damage to NZ’s economy though this uncontrolled market is very worrying to say the least.

    So National are preying to the gods that oil is found big time because they’ve got nothing otherwise.

    In the meantime our useless media are missing the real issues and its bloody infuriating watching the Woman’s Day sideshows continue.

  9. Great article Martyn. Really agree with you about Cunliffe. The msm have it in for him and have so even before he became leader. How he stays so strong I will never know.

    There have been few positive or even neutral media coverage’s of DC. And I have to say Chris Trotter has been part of this. Conversely I am hard pressed to think of negative coverage of Key. If the press isn’t bias please can some of the right wing people who visit this site, provide evidence to the contrary…………….My prediction is there is very little if any.

    So there is this massive dis-joint. Here we have this competent articulate man who comes up with real policies and yet the media portray him in a completely different light. Frankly I find it disgusting.

  10. I absolutely agree, the media are bought and paid for by National. I put in a formal complaint a couple of weeks ago about a Stuff news article headline that was so bias against Labour it made me want to puke, it twisted all that was said. When asked to respond to the complaint (it was against the editor) the editor simply replied that he wasn’t bias but that there was nothing of any note in Cunliffes speech! The speech was introducing new policy to curb Domestic Violence – a huge issue. Who cares what the editors personal opinion is? It wasn’t reporting fact, it was a smear campaign. The speech was later touted as the best Cunliffe has ever given and was heralded by domestic violence agencies around the world.

    When the press council asked if I wanted to continue with the complaint or was I happy with the response, it was easy. I said continue with the complaint. His response already proved the issue of bias, in the editors own words no less. I await their reply. Media are bought and paid for in NZ, no question.

  11. Tom Simmons “Sanctuary” frequent commenter around the traps, called for some utu on the media after the election, worth some serious thought?

    • Hey Ray,

      I rang up waikato times to cancel my subscription. The lady asked why? I said it was because of the right wing bias in their reporting. She then asked me if I liked sports which I replied “I did”. She said would I consider continuing just for the sports article. I said “no”. 2 days later I received a gift voucher and thankyou for my continuing support of the waikato times. A day after that I received a trial call for 6 weeks of the nz herald. Talk about difficult to get rid of right media. By the way still receiving wakato times 3 weeks later.

  12. The preternaturally close relationship between media commentators was no better iillustrated than Brook Sabin’s clomments on “The Nation” this weekend, when he accused Labour of engaging in pre-election deal-making.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/20/another-media-gaffe-this-time-its-tv3s-brook-sabin/

    This was a falsehood corrected only because a much more astute Metro magazine editor, Simon Wilson, was also on the panel to set the record straight.

    Is this what we need now in the 21st century media – that fact-checkers be stationed at the elbows of every commentator to ensure they are giving us accurate information?

    God help us, it appears we are down that road already.

  13. I couldn’t believe the story run in nz stuff about the skiing holiday and the unidentified Labour MPs who were disgusted that David Cunliffe would take his family for a holiday. It so looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel and really, he’s spending his holiday bucks in the country, as opposed to Hawaii or Oz, so it actually makes him look good.

    • Yes, you are right in what you say. Its just another media beat up of Cunliffe. That so called “insider” was no labour person, it was a nat. Notice, what labour did say totally contradicted that “insider”

  14. Like statistics, the use of opinion polls is designed to highlight desired outcomes in the race to persuade voters. We have learned and always known that statistics are mere fabrications, no longer a genuine science. That explains National’s high ride in the polls even during the most desperate situations in Christchurch, the housing crisis, child poverty, and the expanding gap between the rich and the rest of New Zealand.

    If that doesn’t explain Labour’s steep slide in the polls then there’s a hell of a backlash against some of the recent decisions Labour has made. It’s an experiment gone wrong and will continue to fragment Labour support that might see a split among its diverse groups.
    It is also the best thing for MMP where the usual dictate of dominant groups is loosening to the essential participation of the many.

    I think many have thought Cunliffe to be a bulldog, but he has turned out to be pussycat!

      • …. moments after the media rip up of D.C…. in walks Dotcom and the announcement of Glenn Greenwald’s visit. Book me a seat at the Auckland town hall!!!!

  15. I’ll give it to you left folk, your stamina is admirable, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary your stick to your guns.
    My own view is the masses aren’t in enough pain yet to want to change.

    • Why on earth would we change? They’re called principles for a reason. You stand by what you believe in, win or lose, because you feel it’s the right thing. As for evidence, there is a long list of cases of Key lying, while Cunliffe is guilty of no more than forgetting one minor detail from over a decade ago. So what does that evidence say?

      • Would that be the pro forma letter, one of thousands, that all MPs do as part of their job, that requested nothing more than a time frame, signed 11 years ago that you are referring to?
        I defy any nat mp to remember one name from any pro forma letter they signed 11 years ago.

  16. Here’s some interesting comments by Chomsky around his book, “Manufacturing Consent”
    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1992—-02.htm
    QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?
    CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there’s two targets for propaganda. One is what’s sometimes called the political class. There’s maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They’re supposed to sort of participate in social life — either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They’re supposed to vote, they’re supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that’s one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there’s maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything — and they’re the ones who usually pay the costs.
    QUESTION: … You outlined a model — filters that propaganda is sent through, on its way to the public. Can you briefly outline those?
    CHOMSKY: It’s basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We’re talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.
    Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.
    And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.
    ….it’s extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion. Now in whose interests is history being so shaped? Well, I think that’s not very difficult to answer.
    Now, to eliminate confusion, all of this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias. According to the propaganda model, both liberal and conservative wings of the media — whatever those terms are supposed to mean — fall within the same framework of assumptions.
    In fact, if the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively…
    We ask what would you expect of those media on just relatively uncontroversial, guided-free market assumptions? And when you look at them you find a number of major factors determining what their products are. These are what we call the filters, so one of them, for example, is ownership. Who owns them?
    The major agenda-setting media — after all, what are they? As institutions in the society, what are they? …So what we have in the first place is major corporations which are parts of even bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation, they have a product which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers — that is, other businesses. What keeps the media functioning is not the audience. They make money from their advertisers. And remember, we’re talking about the elite media. So they’re trying to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates. And ask your friends in the advertising industry. That means that they want to adjust their audience to the more elite and affluent audience. That raises advertising rates. So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations, that are selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses.
    Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? I mean without any further assumptions, what you’d predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world, that satisfies the needs and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product.
    Now there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don’t have that point of view they’re likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It’s not the way institutions function. So they’ll work to exclude or marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they’re dysfunctional, they’re dysfunctional to the institution itself.
    Now there are other media too whose basic social role is quite different: it’s diversion. There’s the real mass media-the kinds that are aimed at, you know, Joe Six Pack — that kind. The purpose of those media is just to dull people’s brains.
    This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent or whatever they are, the main thing is to divert them. To get them to watch National Football League. And to worry about “Mother With Child With Six Heads,” or whatever you pick up on the supermarket stands and so on. Or look at astrology. Or get involved in fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. Get them away from things that matter. And for that it’s important to reduce their capacity to think.
    

  17. Thank you Martin Bradbury for saying what so badly needs to be said and said far more frequently too !!

    Quite frankly, this vicious hate campaign against David Cunliffe, orchestrated by national/media, is UNPRECEDENTED, Im amazed that Labour is still polling in double digits at all, and Im amazed even more that Cunliffe is even getting 9% or whatever it is.
    It should be noted that Norman Kirk was polling 6%, Helen Clark at 2% prior to being elected PM. But who said the polls are true? the 2011 election sure proved them wrong.

  18. Mainstream media think they can win the election for national. Let’s face it, they are the mouthpiece of the national’s party, and as others have aptly pointed out, “bought and paid for.” They are actively and with irrational manic fervour are sabotaging every move that Labour makes and putting every word that Cunliffe says through a meat grinder. Either way, Labour and Cunliffe are damned it they do, and damned if they don’t. Will say it again, the UNPRECEDENTED level of media abuse and national party orchestrated smear campaigns leveled against David Cunliffe is an attempt to do everything in their power to undermine, discredit and get rid of Cunliffe and knock Labour out of contention. The latest sabotaging calls for Cunliffe to resign even before the election proper has begun is evidence of that. To reiterate, you don’t have to be Einstein to work out what’s really going on here. national are very worried, they see David Cunliffe as their greatest threat and they have done so ever since Cunliffe was democratically elected. Look at the media/right wing speak of “bring back Shearer” they KNOW Shearer would be incapable of handling key, and that’s the very reason right there for Shearer’s somewhat sudden media favouritism. It sure looks like John key and cohorts are not feeling at all confident in the upcoming debates against Cunliffe, I guess national have got their ‘rent a mob of haters” already lined up. Wouldn’t be the first time national have done that.

  19. People are rightly suspicious / cautious . Labour gave us Roger Douglas who then shat out ACT . Why shouldn’t people be suspicious of Labour / Cunliffe ?
    Since you’re so close to cunliffe perhaps you could suggest , against his previous misgivings , man the fuck up and take some skin off the Right wing scumbags . Show some metal for Christs sake . Not long ago I saw him warmly shaking jonkys greasy hand ! WTF ? After living through the Hell of neoliberalism , losing my lifes work to a manufactured interest crises and watching all manner of inbred , as you say banjo playing , porch sitters in suits laugh at our dismay and suffering , I’m rightfully , deeply mistrustful of every fucking politician sucking on six figure salaries ! Explain that to one of your 265 k hungry kids ! In a land rich in everything ! I am hugely suspicious of David ‘ Pure as Driven Snow ‘ Cunliffe . I’m eager to apologise to him and yourself after the election as required but I’m not holding my breath .

    And why are there five times as many National Party Hoardings up around Christchurch than Labour Party Hoardings ? Big , bright and Blue . That’s exactly what I saw when helen clarke handed the gruesome task of lying to us 4.3 million morons back to National before the 2008 election .

  20. The popularity of Key has vey little to do with what is written in the Press, but everything to do with Key himself and how he relates to the public. It’s exactly the same with Cunliffe, the difference being most like one and not the other. I think the reality will be that the more Cunliffe is seen, the less he will be liked.

    • john key is only PERCEIVED as being popular due to the media. key is not that comfortable with ordinary people as Cunliffe is.

  21. For many decades I and my coworkers listened to the radio as we worked.
    It was mainly Talk Back an innocuous and innocent type of program filled with light hearted chatter. Remember Merv Smith, Angela D’Audney etc.

    Then radio networks arrived and after a time it all started to change. Liarton and many wankers and wankesses arrived on the scene where they manipulated and checked out the callers before they got on air.

    Those with opposing views to the hosts never got on air except for a few token ones that could be mocked and scorned and pitied.
    Those callers who managed to get on the air between the hosts diatribes and the advertisements agreed with the hosts concerns…lazy beneficiaries, lazy Maoris, lazy unionists, Helen Clark etc.

    It got worse, the hosts got more political and more scornful to the opposition parties (except when National was in opposition). Thankfully before we ended up changing to FM Golden Oldies Music someone found the BBC Program coming out of Mangere.
    Sanity ruled again. Educational, politically neutral programs with all the British football results! Sheer bliss.

    I’m retired now and no longer listen to the radio ,40 years is enough, however whenever I hear the dulcet tones of Liarton he’s not doing any favours to the Left.
    We worry about TV, I worry about the propaganda that is being constantly run 24/7 in the background by NZ radio.

  22. Yes – I am watching in absolute dismay as the media “white-ant” David Cunliffe and fall over themselves to lick ar – – with John Key. The media
    has sold out to the multinationals, and NZ is the poorer for it,and we’ll go down the gurgler further under another three years of the Nats. Oh Our Beloved Country …… just another sucker for the USA.

  23. This apology was taken from the Stuff’s website. It was so small you could barely read it. It was a squeak of an apology.

    “A previous version of this article mistakenly reported Labour’s most recent polling at 23.5 per cent. It also incorrectly said Cunliffe had taken the week off when he was away for three days.”

    Then there was the Donghua Liu claims of the $100,000 bottle of wine which was widely reported by the Herald and then later found out to be false. Where is the Herald’s public apology? I am still waiting.

    Also Sean Plunket from RadioLive discussed a Whaleoil story which claimed Cunliffe traded information for exchange for processing an ACC claim. Except when he interviewed the person making the claim, plunket quickly realised that the whole story had been fabricated to make Cunliffe look as bad as possible. Sean Plunket, despite his pro National stance seemed incensed at the sloppy way the story had been put together and shut the story down completely, telling his callers it was a complete work of fiction.
    Note: Whale oil still has the original story headlining their website.

    Thank you Bomber for trying to raise the journalistic standards in this country with the Daily Blog!
    Knowledge is power, and now thanks to you, power to the people!

  24. Possibly your best post ever, Mr Bradbury – heartfelt and completely to the point.

    I hate to give Key credit for anything much ‘cos he doesn’t deserve it. But if there’s one thing the conniving sod deserves credit for, its that he’s been extremely successful at manipulating the media. Of course, he has the REAL power behind the throne backing him up in this – by that, I mean, of course, the well-heeled lobbyists. That international group, controlled by small but immensely powerful organisations such as the Bilderberg group.

    Key essentially does as he is told by Obama. Obama, in turn, does as he is told by the U.S. Lobbyists.

    Yon need look no further than the political prostitute that Obama has become with respect to the Gaza War to see the essential underlying truth in this. No president in America can AFFORD to ignore the Jewish lobby. (There was a time, naively, when I held out great hope for the Obama administration. That, alas, all to soon soon lead to total disillusionment as “Yes we can . . . ” became “No we can’t. . . . “)

    So, thank you Martyn, for, a relevant, a useful and a truthful posting.

  25. Sir Wallace (Bill) Rowling suffered similarly from personal smear campaigns in the 70s and 80s. Back then the main instigator was the leader of the National Party (Muldoon) and he didn’t even care to hide this. Difference now is that although the main smear instigator is still the leader of the National Party (Key) he cleverly stands above it with a halo over his head while Slater, Farrar, Henry et al. do his dirty work. Tory dirty tricks haven’t much over the last century, only the technology has changed.

Comments are closed.