Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

10 Comments

  1. Are Spinoff grasping at straws in order to stay afloat? Making a raft like the Kon-Tiki of last century when we were interested in Planet Earth. Is this a straw man they are erecting to either cover the fact that they don’t care who wins and regard the election as a media event for stand-up comedians, or considering that only humour will encourage alienated young people to take a real interest in politics enough to study and think about them, and try to use their vote, and use it wisely?

    That all sounds a bit ironic , rather hopeful. Humorous, risible, you be the judge!

    1. Nobody reads these rubbish publications. It won’t be hard to expose them — there isn’t a single serious broadsheet paper left (unless you’re getting The Guardian or The Australian air-mailed). As soon as someone starts one, they’ll wipe the floor (and cause the other papers to go into hysterics).

      Broadcast news is no different. The bar is so low: even Sky News often looks amateurish, and most talk radio isn’t serious at all.

      If the trade unions restarted the labour movement press, it would change everything. Even if they composed the entire newspaper from wire reprints, and hired some undergrad student from Oxford to read out the same stories on air — this ultra-low budget operation would still be superior to all the rest!

    2. Greywarbler Agree % re humour in election coverage. We need objective factual reporting, not funny stuff which can divert and mightn’t be all that funny, even if it provides material for ego- tripping scribes’ future books which they invariably hope will make them famous and important like politicians.

      Don’t think they don’t care who wins. The Spinoff’s report, 25/3/23, about the occurrence at Albert Park was from cloud cuckoo land, jolly misleading, and towing the government line about that shameful event orchestrated to deny women a public platform by any what means.

      If the Spin-off want to be clowns, then they can run for Parliament and join the circus up Bowen Street.

  2. Well if the government funds nuttiness, nuttiness is produced.

    Sooooo.. YEAH.. that’s, that.

  3. Yes No Comment. Labour rather good at making ACT look like a well oiled machine. No doubt that dancing with the Stars appearance is worth 3 %. Labour need to get silly Willy or grunting Grant on dancing with the Stars. Hipkins would not be up to it.

  4. I read the article and true, it ignores the push-back to woke that has helped Act. Still, it’s an interesting insight into how ACT has gone from joke to credible contender.

    1. I think ACT remains a joke despite becoming an alleged credible contender. That excitable little fellow Seymour strikes me as a shallow chancer.

Comments are closed.