Has Laila Harre been blacklisted from Radio NZ?

28
3

12392_1383399427480_1306817385_31104826_3124066_n

One would imagine after banning me from Radio NZ for life, that RNZ would have felt they had self censured themselves enough for the National Party. Apparently not.

Laila Harre was due to appear on a RNZ panel discussion about the future of the Green Party, but the Green Party complained about Laila being part of the debate and she was then dumped from the panel discussion.

Radio NZ complained to the Auckland Museum in 2012 that I was part of the RNZ sponsored Late at the Museum talks because they were concerned I would be critical of them and that criticism might be broadcast on their station. A year after banning me from RNZ in 2011, they were still trying to have me removed from events they were sponsoring in 2012.

The lengths with which the establishment media work to shut down certain voices while promoting those implicated in the Dirty Politics scandal is remarkable.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

 

28 COMMENTS

  1. Geez…where have all the stodgy ,grey haired old men wearing cardigans gone these days?

    The guys with the job for life and ‘that’s the way its done here ‘ set?

    Instead we got these slick haired, fast talking young corporate whizz brats more concerned with shareholder’s dividends and shallow content than any accurate , impartial or diverse input.

    They must have grown up and become the biased , grey haired , leather jacket wearing slick bastards instead.

  2. What the hell problem does the Green Party have with Laila? And what the hell is RNZ doing kow towing to any political party? Bloody disgraceful.

    • I think the question is “What the hell problem does Laila have with the Green Party”. She’s suddenly become quite vocal in critique of the Green Party when she really should be discussing the Internet Mana Party at length (good and bad qualities). She seems to be using the Green Party to justify her own pre election decision to drop the party and join Internet Mana. Laila is politically quite isolated now. If she wants to make a change through activily participating in politics now, her only real option is the Mana Party but I don’t see that as a good fit either. So she will likely become media’s go to person for comments on left wing parties, without having any inside knowlege, with her views being used by the media to undermine them. Laila may have lots of good qualities but lack of loyalty appears to be her achillies heel.

    • I would like to know the reasons why the Greens didn’t want Laila to be on the panel before I pass judgement. As for Radio NZ not to be told what to do by political parties – way too late! They have been fixing things for National for the last few years, only now it has become so routine they can’t even be bothered to hide it.

      • I imagine because it would be idiotic of the Greens to agree to be lectured in public by the unrepentent ex-leader of a failed political party who still can’t see that her whole plan was a threat to the Greens and the entire left.

  3. “Mr Bradbury’s invitation to take part in The Panel discussion segment was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance.”

    “when X is “deemed” to be Y it is ordinarily conceded that X is not Y, and is known not to be Y”

    Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen

    • Yes – Martyn comments on the rather horrific prime ministarial ‘throat slitting’ incedence – result: banned for life. Hooton calls Mr Cunliffe a liar “He’s a liar. He’s a liar” several times on Catherine Ryan’s show- result: a week off and a lame apology.

      And this was before the Dirty Politics revelations.

      Not sure how this marrys with the fairness and balance requirements.

  4. Remember howl all those journalists including several from National Radio were given a free trip to USA by the American Embassy . I guess that expenditure is bearing ripe juicy fruit for them now. Not so much for NZ though.

  5. After Dirty Politics, how Farrar and Hooton get airtime on our public National radio news programme beats me.
    However, if you look at who’s in charge of the news and who appointed him, you may get an answer.

  6. This is a clear signal for all opposition Parties now to mount a court case against the government controlling our public media.

    The opposition now must rescue a free media public sector of the TVNZ/RNZ networks for opposition to voice the other side of the story as we expect their voices to be heard with reasoned discussion ahead of any Government radical changes due to come our way.

    Important also to prepare us as informed voters well ahead of the next general election in 2017.

  7. I fail to see what business it is of the Greens who appears on a panel hosted by RNZ, even if they are the topic of discussion. That said, Laila really has tarnished her own reputation with her association with Dotcom. I very much doubt her career will recover from that.

    • But isn’t that what the Greens are all about? Telling everyday NZers what we should or should not do, say, hear and think? What would Russel Norman’s NZ look like if he was PM and the Greens led us for the next three years?

      • Nah, you’re thinking of the National Party. It’s the Nats who’ve increased Stasi-style surveillance powers for the spies and Police and it’s the Nats who’ve lied consistently to the country.

        Happy to help to refresh your memory.

      • It would be like Belgium when they couldn’t decide on who was going to govern – 589 days and no one noticed. (-;

    • RNZ can have on whoever they want, but it is entirely the Green’s business whether they wish to take part as well. It looks like RNZ wanted the Green’s view on the Green’s future rather than Laila’s. Good choice.

  8. I heard that Laila Harre was supposed to be the Green’s strategy adviser but after starting the role left to take over the InternetMana party. I do not know if this is true and maybe there is different versions of that. However that might explain the bad blood and also why the Green’s strategy this year was pretty woeful. Anyway my thoughts are people make mistakes and you have to let it go, especially if fundamentally you are in agreement and have a wider shared goal of for example changing the government and getting ‘Green’ policy out there. The ‘left’ parties/players need to unite in some way – Greens should reach out to Sue Bradford and Laila Harre as they are ideas/results focused people. They may not be the easiest to work with but I think the Greens need more strategy and more results focused people working with them (maybe not in the party if that helps) to drive change in the country. Also there are some really big problems going on in this country around corruption and freedom but the Greens are focusing further down (poverty/ environment) – they need to look at the big picture of. If there is corruption and power interests controlling policy in this country then you do not have much hope of saving the environment or changing poverty when government policy is geared towards just putting policy through for 3rd parties. i.e. No healthy lunches in schools (thanks Katherine Rich et al), Surveillance on Kiwis (US interests et al), SFO charges dropped for Hotchins (Judith Collins/Slater), Attacks on Journalists like Hager from police.

    • Laila was on the Green’s campaign committee and left when she joined the Internet Party. I think when someone leaves a party, it’s not up to the party to reach out to them, but for them to decide whether they want back in. Both Laila and Sue are hugely talented, but both like to have things their way. That’s not so easy in the Green Party and maybe Laila was put off by that. In the end, if her strategic abilities and political nous were demonstrated by what she did with IMP, we’re very fortunate the Greens decided to ignore her.

      • In the end, if her strategic abilities and political nous were demonstrated by what she did with IMP, we’re very fortunate the Greens decided to ignore her.

        Actually, Kenat, that’s not true at all.

        IMPs problems started with (1) the very public outburst by Pam Corkery (2) the very public and bizarre ranting by Georgina Beyer and (3) strategic mistakes by Kim Dotcom to be so prominant on September 15 at “The Moment of Truth”. It ended with an unholy alliance to remove Harawira from Te Tai Tokerau.

        I’ve known Laila since our days in The Alliance, and she is a shrewd, dedicated, and honest political activist. With her, what you see is what you get. I honestly believe that Mana-Internet’s goal was to get an extra two or three MPs into Parliament, on Harawira’s “coat-tails”. (Whether we like the coat-tailing provision is another matter entirely. Them’s the rules, and that’s the only game in town. Try playing it any other way, and you’ll be playing into National’s hands, thank you very much.)

        I’ve heard criticism that Mana accepted KDC’s money.

        To which I reply with a straight-in-your-face: SO FUCKING WHAT?!

        Because if we’re going to play that game and accept the narrative that MANA was somehow corrupted by KDC’s money – then what that means is that parties that represent the poor and dispossesed must, themselves, remain poor – and dispossessed. Because MANA’s constituents won’t have a hope in hell in donating sufficient cash to match National, ACT, and Labour.

        In effect, it means that critics of KDC’s funding are suggesting with a straight face that parties of the poor must be poor to be credible.

        If parties of the poor obtain meaningful funding (eg, KDC), then that – according to the populist bullshit narrative – implies “hypocrisy”.

        In plain english: it is a narrative designed to keep parties like MANA cashless and powerless. Especially powerless. Definitely powerless.

        Money is power and it was only when KDC funded MANA that the full forces of the Establishment (National, ACT, Labour, NZ First, et al) came crashing down on MANA. Before then, no one took MANA seriously.

        That is what is really being discussed here. Everything else – bullshit. A distraction.

        National and it’s right wing allies wanted MANA destroyed, to preserve Key’s prospects for a third term in office.

        NZ First wanted MANA destroyed because Harawira threatened Peters’ chance as “Kingmaker”.

        The Maori Party wanted MANA gone – because it threatened their own existence.

        And Labour and the Greens wanted MANA obliterated because it drew activists from their own support base.

        That is what I mean by MANA being a threat to the established power structure of this country. That is why the Nats, Labour, NZ First, and (reportedly) the Maori Party, joined forces to endorse Kelvin Davis to win Te Tai Tokerau.

        Laila’s only “crime” is that she became a threat to the political establishment in this country. To which her enemies replied with a viciousness that has damaged the public perception of her career; her integrity; her character.

        And ironically… she is probably one of the most honest politicians this country has ever had.

        That is why, it seems, that only rogues, scoundrels, and grinning liars make it into Parliament. The honest ones don’t stand a chance.

  9. Was Laila’s skiing holiday post-election to the US true and with Matthew Hooton or was this a bad rumour?

    On the throat slashing moment, I recall it and it didn’t get much attention but it was one of those rare and very ugly moments where the mask slipped on the real John Key. He lost it at the point. It was worthy of far more attention not a life ban which is crazy because a person raised the subject in colourful prose. Maybe it was being a critic of neo liberal rich bastards was more the reason.

  10. Take all the hysteria away and you’ll possibly find that she signed a confidentiality agreement on leaving the Greens that she has a high risk of breaching by being on this show discussing this topic.

    • That is not likely. Laila’s integrity is a matched by no one. She’s an astute professional. Considering breaching any confidentiality agreement is not something she’d spend a nano second thinking on.

Comments are closed.