Grandpa Garth Does it Again
Grandpa Garth has another beaut of a column in today’s Herald. This time Mr George takes some time to blow his own trumpet over a recent, no doubt inspiring and engaging, “talk” he gave to a few 7th form students. NZ Pundit expects it contained many nostalgic references to those by gone times when women wore aprons and a man’s house was his castle, and a healthy scattering of those politically incorrect quips Grandpas and Grandmas often make. Mr George notes:
“And the feedback I received from the teacher was that the class loved my talk because “he’s so down to earth”. As one who is comfortable in his own skin and, more importantly, in his own mind, I am in the habit of speaking plainly, as readers of this column will have observed”
You sure do speak plainly Mr George. You sure do. Anyway, Mr George then goes on to elucidate the obvious conclusion that the students’ enjoyment of his “talk” was solely due to their upbringing in this “era of political correctness”.
Yet more proof that good journalism is the ability to meet the challenge of filling space.
Powered by Qumana
Garth George: The Great-Grandfather Of NZ Journalism
Garth George, allegedly the only nonagenarian working in New Zealand journalism, reminds me somewhat of Victor Muldrew from One Foot In The Grave, longing for a return to the good ol’ days while the world continues to move forward without him. Poor guy. The latest issue to get Garth’s Y-fronts in a knot is the controversy surrounding the “secret” recordings made at National’s recent conference. Decrying this incident in today’s Herald, Garth says:
“Politics in New Zealand, despicable as it has been for decades, has reached a new low with the secret taping of private conversations at last weekend’s National Party conference”
Well actually Garth, I thought that low would have been reached when National’s mates the Exclusive Brethren decided to wage a secret campaign against Labour at the last election. Or when National’s mates the Exclusive Brethren paid private investigators to follow Helen Clark and dig up dirt on her. Or when National’s mate Ian Wishart launched his vicious attack on Helen Clark and her husband. Or when secret recordings of Mike Williams were made at Labour’s election congress earlier this year. But then again, it is well known that, like the National Party, geriatrics do have a relatively short and selective memory, so we’ll let you off for that one Garth.
Garth then takes a swipe at those media scoundrels, even his own employer, saying:
“And why the media, including this newspaper, would deign to use word for word such questionable material, and in addition do their damnedest to attribute to the victims, deputy leader Bill English and party veteran Lockwood Smith, some hidden and sinister political programme”
It seems that under that stern exterior, Mr George has a rather soft spot for poor National Party MPs caught, albeit “questionably”, lying to the public. They are, after all, simply “victims” of some bigger scheme to ensure the public is properly informed before they decide New Zealand’s next government. Garth then rambles and rants a bit about “principles”, “turncoats”, “odiums” and other such 17th century phenomena, before finishing up with a nice little anecdote from MacBeth.
You’ve certainly earned your super wine biscuit and afternoon nap today, Garth. Good on ya mate!
Powered by Qumana
National Using EFA To Restrict Free Speech
The Weekend Herald is this morning reporting that National is taking the Electoral Commission and the EPMU to court to challenge the Commission’s decision to allow the union to register as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act.
It is certainly ironic that the one political group who campaigned so vigorously against the Act, claiming it restricted free speech, are also the first people to try and use the Act’s provisions to do just that.
Powered by Qumana
Labour In Good Spirits
Labour Party President Mike Williams has admitted feeling “miserable” about Labour’s position at the start of the year. With opinion polls showing them trailing National and a number of issues dogging the government, anyone could be forgiven for thinking things were turning to custard. However, four months on and Williams says Labour is in very good spirits, and for good reason too. Labour has continued to roll out progressive policies that actually make a difference to New Zealanders and, perhaps more importantly for the looming election, John Key has finally come under the sort of scrutiny that was so lacking when he began his tenure as Leader of the Opposition.
In an article by Audrey Young in the Weekend Herald, Williams states:
“In 1990 we knew we were going to get thrashed. There was all that ‘change the leader, change the policy’ kind of stuff. There is certainly not that sense. I think there is a sense out in the party that we are in with a chance.”
If the recent criticism of Key’s leadership abilities and the improvement in Labour’s fortunes in recent opinion polls is anything to go by, then it would appear that they are in with more than a “chance”. And all indications are that Labour will be a formidable opponent come November.
Michael Cullen has also stated that 2007 was probably a year Labour would rather forget, and although things may have got off to a bad start, he too says Labour’s is in high spirits at the moment, citing three main reasons for this:
The first is general satisfaction within the caucus and wider party that the Government is sticking to its core principles. “There is a feeling we have been doing good things for New Zealand, which is consistent with our traditions and our philosophy.”
The second is stable leadership. “There is no leadership issue. It is absolutely obvious to anybody that Helen is absolutely secure in her position. That issue is not even discussed in the Labour caucus. It is not a matter for any speculation.”
Reason No. 3 is that the party has regained policy momentum. “After some problems last year, I think we feel that we are re-establishing slowly that image of competence, of getting on with the business of Government and, indeed, to a significant extent we’ve captured the policy agenda so far this year – we have been leading on policy, which is a happier place to be in than feeling as though you are being entirely reactive.”
Labour certainly has been leading on the policy front, in contrast to National which has yet to reveal any substantial policy to the electorate, and will no doubt continue to do this leading up to this year’s election. If there is one thing that Labour needs to win the election, it is a strong morale within their ranks and a belief in the policies they have been rolling out. And they have this by the bucket load.
Powered by Qumana
Key Feeling The Heat
John Armstrong has a good piece in the Weekend Herald on the recent quietness that has decended over National in the past week. With the party grabbing few, if any, headlines and Key not asking a single question in the House, Armstrong concludes that National has gone into a state of “suspended animation”.
Of course, this has only increased Labour’s drive to put pressure on Key, and it appears to be paying off, with Key chosing to release National’s $50 victim compensation scheme in Auckland rather than Wellington. On this, Armstrong says:
“Labour was not alone in seeing the decision to release the policy in Auckland as a sign of Key’s gun shyness in the face of the Wellington political media following his widely publicised slip-up over National’s Treaty policy and the fuzziness which surrounded National’s stance on the sale of shares in Auckland Airport to foreign interests.”
It certainly seems as though the pressure finally being applied by the media has taken Key by surprise, and his strategy now is to avoid them altogether. Of course, National has been under the somewhat arrogant illusion that they could simply coast along during the election and gain the Treasury benches without letting the public know what eaxctly it intended to do once there. However, recent weeks have delivered a wake-up call to the party, and they appear to have lost the political agenda altogether. As Armstrong says:
“The Labour fightback has seen National lose control of the political agenda which it was setting at the start of the year.
Labour is largely dictating things, partly by using the advantage of Government incumbency and partly through a steady stream of fresh, politically seductive policy initiatives, many of which have the secondary purpose of trying to force Key to say whether they would survive under a National-led Government.”
And since National has moved toward the left and flip-flopped on a number of Labour initiatives, Labour’s strategy has been to continue releasing attractive policies that National can’t commit to and thus make it increasingly difficult for Key to keep National centrist. On this Armstrong states:
“Labour, meanwhile, is playing an extremely clever game. Key may have moved National to the centre to take votes off Labour. Labour is now trying to crowd him out by putting up centrist policies and challenging him to back them.
If he does, National’s brand distinction fades and its flexibility to spend money is further constrained. If he doesn’t, he is painted as extreme and out of touch with middle NZ.
Likewise, Cullen’s admission his tax cuts will be smaller than National’s may have been a similar ploy.
If Cullen can make his cuts as large as possible, that puts the onus on National to deliver even bigger ones.
If National doesn’t do so, it again loses vital brand distinction.
If National is a lot more generous, it becomes easier for Cullen to brand his opponents as fiscally irresponsible.”
This is a very clever strategy indeed, and one suspects that in the coming weeks and months things will certainly become a lot more difficult for Key than they have been in the past. Far from coasting along to victory, National will be forced to prove to New Zealand what it is they have to offer and actually work to win the public’s vote. It appears this has come as quite a shock to many within the party’s “inner circle”.
National’s Double Standards On Freedom Of Expression
Today’s editorial in The Herald highlights some of the absolute hypocrisy of National over freedom of speech and freedom of expression. After spending the past few months decrying the Electoral Finance Act as an attack on democracy for its so-called “muzzling” of free speech, National MP Chester Burrows has presented to Parliament the “Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill” which would, among other things, “muzzle” one’s freedom of expression by limiting the clothes they can wear in public. The Herald states:
“Preventing Mongrel Mob and Black Power gang members wearing what they like is the thin end of an extremely large wedge. This is not just about gang paraphernalia intimidating members of the public and being the catalyst for further gang confrontation. It is about what comes next. Perhaps anything that is deemed vaguely threatening. Burqas? Hoodies? Both intimidate some people.”
Indeed, where does one draw the line? And how exactly is this going to solve Wanganui’s gang problems? It is highly unlikely that simply stopping gang members from wearing their patches in public will help ease gang tensions or even make the public feel safer. I recall an item on Campbell Live last year looking at this exact issue, and of all the members of the Wanganui public spoken to for their opinion on banning gang patches in public, the vast majority said they would be against it, if only for the reason that a known gang member is easier to avoid than one whose patch is hidden. Apart from promoting a Bill that would be highly ineffective, the strength of National’s convictions has yet again been demonstrated by their penchant for double standards.
The “Ex(perience)” Factor
It was great to see The Herald finally engage in a bit of balanced journalism and put pressure on John Key over his week of blunders. Both Fran O’Sullivan and John Young featured Key’s gaffes in their Saturday pieces, as did the Herald On Sunday editorial. Of note was that all three honed in on Key’s lack of political experience, something which is sure to cause him many headaches in the months to come.
Fran O’Sullivan began hers without mincing any words:
“Memo: John Key. Get on top of policy quickly or you may follow Don Brash into oblivion. And stop blaming journalists for your verbal gaffes _ they’re not employed to be your mind-readers.”
Indeed, a political leader in the throes of an election year, and a crucial one at that, should be at the top of his game. Sadly for Key, he isn’t.
John Young’s piece took a similar tone and raised a rather interesting issue:
“The parliamentary media’s fear is that once he has been sworn-in as Prime Minister, he will reveal his true self and start driving through a completely different agenda to the recipe of moderate conservatism he has cooked up in order to win power.”
Much has been made of Key’s hidden right-wing agenda, but it is certainly surprising that, given these fears, the media has left it so late in the piece to put some pressure on Key and write some critical journalism on him. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.
Finally, Sunday’s editorial had the following to say:
“it may equally be that Key has exposed himself as a man who, in the heat of a hard-fought campaign, will be, like the last National leader, gaffe-prone. What is certain is that the time for rehearsal is past. The curtain is up and there is nowhere left to hide.”
I think this statement hits the nail squarely on the head, and it will interesting to see how Key performs now that the curtain has been lifted and the public’s gaze is fixed firmly on him.
Powered by Qumana
Where Is New Zealand’s Quality Journalism?
Recent comments by Helen Clark and Peter Davis regarding The Herald have served to highlight some interesting and pressing issues concerning the role of the media and the quality of journalism in New Zealand. The comments have probably done Labour more harm than good, but I think they are both valid and timely. For a number of years now the quality of reporting in New Zealand has been on a downward slope. Not only is it now rare to come across a good piece of well researched investigative journalism about hard issues, the journalistic qualities of balance and fairness also seem to have disappeared. The Herald’s coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill, regardless of one’s political persuasion, was a prime example of all that is wrong with New Zealand’s media.
No one could deny the media has an absolutely essential role to play in society. Perhaps this is made no more clearer than in the American Constitution which protects freedom of the Press in the First Amendment. In a democratic society the media is the citizens’ watchdog, charged with placing checks and balances on government and those with power. A secondary role of the media is to provide information to the public to help create an informed citizenry. In this regard, The Herald is right to scrutinize the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet, the actions of government departments and alike. If The Herald did not do this then it would not be fulfilling its role as the Fourth Estate. However, in an election year the political landscape is markedly different, and accordingly the focus of any media outlet, particularly those reporting the news, should be widened. Not only should the government be under intense scrutiny, but every party contesting the election, and especially the opposition, should receive equal attention, and this is where The Herald’s reporting has been particularly unbalanced. Instead of pressing National for policy details and what it intends to do should it be in government post-election, the public has been fed a diet of “fluffy” articles about John Key and his “meteoric” rise in opinion polls. The public deserves better than this.
From the very outset The Herald took an alarmist approach to the Electoral Finance Act, labeling it an attack on democracy. While significant editorial coverage was devoted to exploring the possible implications of the Bill, the same was not given to the underlying reasons for the introduction of the Bill in the first place, namely the antics of the National Party during the 2005 general election. Instead, The Herald chose to run with a completely unsubstantiated line that the Bill was simply an attempt by Labour to entrench its position in government. What was called for was an assessment of National’s use of secret trusts to fund its election campaigns and media pressure for the party to come clean on who it was that was contributing to these trusts. If free speech is the first hallmark of democracy, then transparency must run a close second.
The Herald’s reporting of any event surrounding the government has since tended to involve intense analysis, whilst the opposition has been largely left to its own devices. Particularly alarming has been the suggestion, often explicit, in a number of articles and editorials that the Labour government will not and should not be the government following the 2008 election. One has to ask whether The Herald has broken down the boundary between informing the citizenry and telling the citizenry what to think. Of course, journalists are human and as such any reporting carries an element of opinion, however that opinion must be restrained if balance and fairness are to be upheld. Recent coverage of political issues indicate that The Herald has no intention of improving its journalism practices. Of particular note was Audrey Young’s coverage of the Owen Glen affair, which, in some cases, was almost entirely speculation awaiting confirmation by facts. Such reporting should worry every New Zealander.
The Herald appears to have positioned itself as the self-proclaimed saviour of democracy, but it is debatable whether The Herald even has the integrity to advance such a position given previous events in New Zealand politics which have failed to attract its attention, a prime example being the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Where was the saviour of democracy here? Where was The Herald when Maori rights to due process were completely railroaded? Where were the daily front page articles decrying this attack on democracy? Where were the alarmist headlines and monthly photo montages of all those MPs supporting the legislation? Where were the attempts to hold the government to account over this? If simply limiting, as has been claimed, the free speech of citizens is an attack that goes right to the heart of our democracy, then surely completely removing one’s right to access the courts is a death blow. The Herald obviously didn’t see things this way, and their campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill must thus be hollow, or perhaps The Herald just has a very selective view about what democracy actually is.
Powered by Qumana
