Cash for Copy site The Spinoff has another pointless Poll


Screen Shot 2016-09-14 at 8.21.07 am

The Spinoff states the bleeding obvious once again.

Cash for Copy site, The Spinoff, has another Poll paid for by their client who is paying for this coverage that says Phil Goff will of course win the election, but also shows that the very talented Chloe Swarbrick has almost as much support as Palino.

Thank goodness that the cash for copy clients are blue/green because if The Spinoff is the future of Journalism in NZ, then who pays for the copy matters more than who writes it.

In terms of the Poll, Chloe deserves all the recognition and coverage that she has managed to gain. Her surge of support highlights how utterly frustrated with the status quo a new generation righteously feel. Add her result with Penny Bright’s and you have 12% of progressive Auckland who have no voice at all. If Phil Goff were smart, he would create a new position of Youth Ambassador and offer it to her if he wins.

TDB Recommends

The Daily Blog in conjunction with AUSA will be hosting and live streaming an ‘Anti-Debate’ where the candidates who have had no coverage by the mainstream can debate what Auckland needs.

The event is Monday 26th, 7pm at the Auckland University Pub and will be live streamed exclusively on The Daily Blog.


The world’s driest man – Toby Manhire has tweeted that The Spinoff didn’t pay for this Poll…

Screen Shot 2016-09-14 at 11.46.49 am

…I never suggested that Spinoff paid for the Poll. The blue-green think tank Aera Foundation paid for this Poll,  with the Spinoff being a cash for copy site, I had thought the Area Foundation had paid for that coverage directly as well.

Perhaps the Aera Foundation had only donated to the Spinoff’s War for Auckland.


  1. Palino gets 8%! ,the other candidates are worth far more than this American import.
    Watch out Phil Goff, Palino will be gunning for you as he gunned for Len Brown.

    • Sorry we have ourselves fixated on our own provincial elections and folks outside AUCKLAND don’t see much interest.

      It seems like a walk in the park though I would have liked to see Penny Bright as she is awesome.

  2. “The Daily Blog in conjunction with AUSA will be hosting and live streaming an ‘Anti-Debate’ where the candidates who have had no coverage by the mainstream can debate what Auckland needs.”

    GREAT! That is a good idea, and the MSM and Spinoff and others should be ashamed for not having come up with this idea before!

  3. Hah, I clicked the LINK Martyn presented, and at the very top of the “Spinoff” article, I read “OCKHAM RESIDENTIAL”, one of the main submitters to the Unitary Plan hearings also, who got their way.

    A big FAT ad promoting Ockham’s developments:

    So while I am sure that Ockham did not pay for the poll, they pay for the Spinoff to run their website, and same do other advertisers, and by looking at the advertisers, we can see who may have some influence on editorial policy and practice.

    Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, is a popular saying, I remember, and that is the same problem the MSM have.

    But at least the Spinoff had the decency to also report this:

    “Sorry, but I have to go”, was the end of that one.

  4. I enjoy the Spinoff. I wouldn’t put it in the same camp as The Daily Blog though. Its political element, such as it exists, is more satire and lampoon than standing for a particular set of principles.

  5. Unfortunately the Spinoff has become a type of Sky magazine with sponsored articles. I first thought is was going to be Herald for younger audience, but it’s kinda of worse than that in terms of shallowness.

    It’s the sort of Sky magazine cum developer promotions for building more in Auckland cum trivialising news even further.

    While I would normally congratulate anyone trying to push a new media platform in NZ away from MSM, but the Spinoff is all that is bad about the media under a new and less improved and even less informed news (is that even possible, yes with Spinoff) click bait tactic.

    Had just started looking at it for the Dotcom coverage. But really… I mean meaningless, content free, awful and trivialising is an understatement. If this is an example of journalism covering a man’s freedom here and a test case for extradition – not The bachelor.

    If Spinoff is an example of the future of journalism in NZ, I really hope not!!

    Weirdly Toby Mainhire is the journalist but obviously checked out a while ago. Hard to believe he is ex Guardian. That is what happens when you pay journalists zero hour contracts and wearing some trendy ripped jeans, about to mock someone on twitter in a few characters and get a laugh, have a famous liberal parent, makes you a “top” journalist in NZ. Scary stuff.

    extract Dotcom case…

    Friday September 9: Day 10 of the hearing, Day 8 of the livestream


    Thursday September 8: Day 9 of the hearing, Day 7 of the livestream


      • Thanks Mike. Unfortunately listening to hours of legal jargon are not my forte. More interested in some intelligent journalism on the case (hence my rant at the lack of even an attempt at spinoff). The last bit of real journalism was of course Gordon Campbell on the subject.

        in this extract – but alas nothing I can find since.

        “In the US, the relevant case law – and Viacom v Youtube is the gold standard – has shown that such cases fail to even make the grade for civil damages, let alone criminal penalties. Dotcom should not be extraditable under the law because the behaviours in question do not constitute criminal activities under the law. Once Dotcom is in the US, a case could be mounted for civil damages – but even then, the Youtube precedent suggests it is one that would fail. Given the logic of yesterday’s decision, almost any cloud service that contains infringing material uploaded by its customers (and there would be many) could be shut down, and its owners hauled halfway across the world to face criminal prosecution. Such prosecutions would ultimately fail, given the ‘ safe harbour’ provisions that exist to prevent such injustices, and given that no criminal offence called “ secondary copyright infringement” actually exists.

        However, the intention of the US action against Dotcom is entirely about deterrence – by- harassment. And unfortunately, the New Zealand courts have now become accomplices in this travesty.”

        And one who has any links to any real journalism on the case would be good.

Comments are closed.