Here we go again. On top of the overt bias against Labour from Mediaworks, here’s the NZ Herald with a bullshit story trying to drum up a coup…
Claire Trevett: Labour MPs have a window for a coup – but not the will
Come June 23 and Labour’s caucus will have that rare thing: a brief window of unbridled power.
If they want to they can roll Andrew Little, they can instigate a coup, a spill!
For the three months before the election, Labour’s Constitution provides for its caucus alone to change the leader.
While National’s caucus can do this any old time they want, it is the only time caucus can roll a leader and instate a new one without having to go through the long and arduous process of letting the membership vote as well.
…the NZ mainstream media are trying to manufacture a Labour crisis, just like they do every election.
The goal is the same it always is, portray Labour as divided and allow National to win the election.
The NZ Herald has a long history of supporting racist, sexist, anti worker hatred, (their first editorial was calling on white settlers to attack Maori), but it’s their more modern deviations into being a mouthpiece for dirty politics which concerns us all now.
Late last year, the NZ Herald attempted to smear Labour Party candidate Michael Wood by using unsubstantiated claims that Wood’s had a physical altercation with the husband of a Nation al Party candidate. That entire event was proved to be utterly false when the video was released, yet as long time critic of the NZ Herald and our guest blogger, Neil Watts rightly points out, the NZ Herald should have known better…
The Fairfax-hosted debate took place on Wednesday night, and was reported by Fairfax to be a “tense and fiery affair”, notable for the loud protests directed at National Party candidate Parmjeet Parmar.
The Herald weren’t much interested in any of this, until Friday, when they published this one-sided slur of Labour’s Michael Wood. Of course, in the Herald’s report, there was nothing on the protests, and it was all about Mr Wood’s “man handling” and “threats” towards Mrs Parmar’s husband, Ravinder Parmar.
The room was full of senior journalists, but none from the Herald have made any attempt to present the facts as they occurred on the night, preferring instead to run with what might be considered the wilful defamation of the Labour candidate in a by-election.
Unfortunately for the Parmar’s, the National Party, and the New Zealand Herald, the whole incident was captured on film, and the footage emerging today clearly shows that this was a cynical indulgence in dirty politics, intended to harm the reputation of the Labour Party’s candidate.
…NZ Herald senior reporters KNEW that Woods hadn’t physically assaulted anyone, yet they remained silent as the story unfolded, which begs the question, are the NZ Herald once again as we get closer to the election, starting to use dirty politics again to bias the media coverage of Labour?
Remember the Donghua Liu Affair where the NZ Herald claimed Labour was given $100 000 for a bottle of wine that never existed?
Remember the NZ Herald demanding David Cunliffe resign over this $100 000 bottle of wine that never existed?
Remember when the NZ Herald enabled and empowered Cameron Slater to break numerous smears and hate in their paper?
Remember when the NZ Herald lied about Rachel Glucina being a reporter for them and published the identity of a young waitress who had the courage to out the Prime Minister for constantly touching her at work?
Just because Slater isnt working with them in 2017 doesnt mean they aren’t as corrupt as they were in 2014.
The Herald may be the worst at this, but they are not alone.
I was again disappointed with RNZ’s Susie Ferguson and her enthusiastic Gotcha interview with Andrew Little this morning.
This is becoming the regular modus operandi for Ferguson. I’m not sure what her orientation may be, but a full interview, armed with data where she combined tax material with Accommodation Supplement data to make it look as if Little was being disingenuous over the wonderful National “Labour-lite”plan.
It took Little a couple of minutes to work out what exactly the deception was as it maybe left a wrong impression with the listeners.
This kind of Gotcha interviewing seems usual for most media interviewers confronting Labour, such that on the rare occasion that they don’t use that approach it comes as a breath of fresh air, the more notable for it’s rarity. Bill English et al, on the other hand seems allowed to answer whatever question is posed without push back, and then we’re off to the next topic.
I don’t mind close scrutiny, as long as it is legitimate (“EXACTLY HOW MANY HOUSES, MR LITTLE, AND EXACTLY WHERE WILL THEY BE LOCATED…ANSWER! ANSWER!….YOU CAN’T CAN YOU?”) but let’s be a tad more even handed. Particularly on The People’s last remaining news outlet.
Susie is so awful at interviewing — either she seems to read from a prepared (right of centre) script or she is virtually incoherent. I cringe when I hear her, and usually switch stations or mute!
Yesterday, during an interview with Bill English, she asked, whether he was sure that tenants would “pocket” the Accommodation Supplement. That is impossible, tenants cannot “pocket” it, it goes straight through into the landlords’ pockets. Susie is not well informed herself, so what a cheek to try and catch Andrew Little out, he should have turned the table and taken her to the cleaners.
I disagree, MJH. Suzie Ferguson can be a tough cookie when dealing with recalcitrant ministers like Joyce, Smith, etc. She is a professional and excellent at interviewing.
Soooo,… they are at it again , huh ?…. or rather ,… did they ever let up?
They are true deviants and subversives of our democratic process.It doesn’t matter what label they wear be it either private or public organizations, they are defending a particular agenda. And one which does not have the best interests of New Zealanders first and foremost.
Yawn, this time even Labour MPs will not have the appetite for such a thing to happen. They need to come up with a new headline and story, the tired MSM.
I read Trevett’s “story”. I fail to see the point. As far as I can see, there is no story.
Did she get paid to write that?
Either that or spite. Could be either. Trevett’s certainly on the side of the National party by constantly making negative suggestions and stories up about the Labour party.
Meh , she probably is paid to be a Nat cheerleader.
I can see her now, along with Audrey Young, bored silly , sipping her latte and clipping her toenails at the office desk waiting for the next call to come in from Stephen Joyce …
The money would likely have originated from the National Party. It is an open secret that many journalists get “gifts” from the National Party for their efforts.
This is complete bullshit – no journalist would take anything from any party they would be heavily compromised and whilst granny Herald is right wing it does not mean all its jouranlists are.
Sorry, but it’s you that’s bullshitting. John Key was notorious for giving his JK – PM’s Pinot as gifts to journalists.
See here for example the disclaimer at the bottom of Patrick Gower’s story: http://www.newshub.co.nz/opinion/patrick-gower/john-key-and-his-vineyard-investments-2010052616
“DISCLAIMER: Patrick Gower was given a bottle of the “PM’s Pinot”, which he was grateful for. He gave it to a relative soon afterwards and well before research on this story began. It had long been drunk when he checked back.”
You are either completely ignorant of the state of journalism and/or you are a National apologist
Either way, you are wrong.
I agree Frank. Trevett’s piece was a “non story”.
I ask, why is Simon Collins still writing for the Herald? Is it the media outlet itself, or is it perhaps not rather the bias of some writing for it, I wonder? Simon Collins has at least at times in the past written some good articles on social issues, which were not that friendly of the government. But I also heard, he cannot get everything he would like to write published, as some editor may have the last word.
Mike, it would be a shame if any of Simon’s articles were being knocked back by the Herald . I knew Simon in the 1990s when he ran Wellington’s City Voice and his social conscience is amazingly strong. He’s probably one of the few reporters for the Herald (now that Dita De Boni is gone) who gives that paper any credibility. When it comes to trusting someone in the msm, he’s be up there at the top.
RNZ was known as red radio once but these days it is taking on a distinct hue of blue.
And that’s down to the change in management structure at the station a while back that is more in line with what the government wants us to hear.
In the budget they have made provision to fund RNZ for the first time since 2008 , Stephen Joyce feels that the new team is responding as it should by attacking Andrew Little for one.
When the PM or the leader of the opposition are interviewed they are only asked to comment on one subject for the whole time they are on air and yet there are many topics they should be covering as there are no shortage of those.
The Herald is continuing its demise with the same old tactics rolled out to discredit the left and if they cant find any mud to throw they manufacture the mud and hope it sticks.
Truth is often the first casualty of this type of approach but the Herald dont give a jot as long as the story has the desired effect.
Cunliffe should have fought these bastards and sued for defamation, that is the problem here these parasites are getting away with this behaviour and it does not help when we have weak regulations for dealing with media like the Herald.
This proves what you suspect:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/92976168/budget-2017-radio-nz-funding-freeze-comes-to-an-end
“An eight-year funding freeze on Radio New Zealand has come to an end with the Government announcing an annual boost of $2.84 million in the Budget for the state-owned broadcaster.
Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Maggie Barrie said the extra money would help Radio NZ invest in new technology and “improved capability”.
Radio NZ’s funding through NZ On Air had been set at $32m since 2007.”
They would not have got more funding if they had made the government more angry over recent times. I have noticed the quiet tone on matters reported on, even John Campbell sounds more timid than years ago.
While they still report critical articles and interviews, they are far from challenging the government too much.
Ferguson should return to Morningside, Edinburgh from whence she came. Her haranguing repetitive shouting is not what constitutes an effective interviewing technique. The public are already confused about the virtue or otherwise of National’s policies and with the election weeks away, the likes of Ferguson and Espiner are all noise and no substance.
Nine to Noon with Kathryn Ryan is an example of good investigative journalism – she is a rare exception.
FFS Kathryn Ryan is as much a conformist as most working in the MSM these days. While she gets the ODD good interview right, most the time she is on about the same old boring topics, a bit of lifestyle issues, education, childcare, mother stuff, and middle class topics, never anything much about REAL social issues.
She tows the line fine, the Nats would think, she is no threat to the establishment, she is becoming rather mediocre and boring now, I feel.
‘Mother stuff’ as you so patronisingly call it is actually interesting to some people including mothers – and N to N is what it is, a magazine type programme – KR’s recent interviews on the state of the environment, mental health and education under National have been excellent – highlighting this government’s disgraceful record -for an audience who would maybe not otherwise be aware, if they only watch TVNZ and read The Herald.
I disagree T&T (can you make your log-in any longer, please?). Ferguson is not haranguing, she is determined to get an answer from politicians who are reluctant to provide answers. That is her job and she does it bloody well.
By the way, the National Party has not virtues in its policies.
manufacture another Labour crisis ? There is a Labour crisis. Denying it will not help win the election.
I see Paula Bennett brought out another policy today to target the other policy National created that created record burglaries and victims of crimes. Yet somehow people see Labour in crisis. Dave, there is no crisis, that is reserved for National and the housing CRISIS, the burglary CRISIS and many more CRISIS they have created in 9 years. Labour don’t need to WIN the election, National will lose it, all by themselves.
“Labour don’t need to WIN the election, National will lose it, all by themselves.”
Rubbish. That’s the attitude that spurs complacency on election day. Labour needs to win, people need to get down to the ballot box and vote National out, not cross their fingers and hope the fantasy fulfils itself. That’s exactly what has happened the last two elections.
The last two elections were clearly won by a bias right wing media. The Herald and it’s political editor of the time John Armstrong, crucified the then leader David Cunliffe, one of many anti Labour media pieces resulting in Labour gaining any traction on National. It was a mandate on behalf of the National party and big business. The MSM were highly successful in their goal of maintaining a right wing government. Armstrong came out with an apology post election, clearly well after the damage was done. Nothing I have seen convinces me the opposition is getting a fair and level playing field now. As I mentioned, luckily National are self destructing and even the fawning media are struggling to find credibility in National and it’s policies.
I concur with you however, that we need to get out and vote and to vote with our heads, to oust a government only content to accommodate themselves, the property investors and their wealthy donors.
Ok, we seem to be on the same side, apart from semantics. So here’s what I’m trying to say – The election was not WON by the MSM – It was ENABLED. The election was LOST by voter apathy on the part of anyone who fooled themselves into thinking “There’s no way National could win after all the scandal, and the public sentiment. It’s a given, so I’ll just stay home and work on the patio.”
Yes I agree and the MSM achieved their goal.
Nothing will change in the corrupt political system that operates in NZ (and most other ‘democracies’} until the money system collapses and environment degradation reaches a beyond-critical point.
Just how long the energy supply that permits the current insanity will hold up is still unclear: environmentally destructive extraction is still feasible. Once significant energy decline occurs this corrupt political system will collapse. Best estimate is 2018 to 2020. Not long to wait now.
In the meantime, all mainstream political commentary is delusional nonsense or propaganda.
In many ways I wish it were true, but it isn’t and even if the careerist neolibs who infect the Aotearoa Labour Party were inclined to stage a spill they would merely select any equally neoliberal arse from one of the segments of the kiwi population they have so gleefully divided.
As long as Labour rates identity politics division over class division they will continue to fail.
I mean to say, can anyone really feel the burn over the possible tho highly unlikely victory of andrew fucking little?
Given the make up of many of this site’s contributors I fully expect to be booed for saying this stuff but I hafta say I am reminded of the way a genuine humanist push in the amerikan dem party has been kyboshed by the docile unions and snout in the trough NGOs’ election of Perez to the chair of the DNC.
see https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/25/incredibly-disappointing-democrats-choose-tom-perez-head-party
Hence why worry about fixing the party when it is easier to say “the russians did it” so what if that leads to a war – we kept our cushy gigs in the top paddock eh.
Of course the pseudo humanists with their snouts in the kiwi neoliberal trough aren’t quite as sociopathic as the amerikan equivalent, but their instincts are the same. I cannot imagine anything meaningful being done by a Little led government other than a few inexpensive but divisive sops to assorted bourgeois factions.
There will be a few well paid gigs in assorted special interest NGOs on the understanding no one rocks the boat and that will be about the size of the ‘win’.
I suppose it could be worse, we could swap our economic sovereignty for the right to keep out US gunboats – no wait – that has already happened hasn’t it?
Comments are closed.