Jim Mora in conversation with Sol3 Mio and obviously enjoying their music and humour.
TVNZ has announced the panel to review the misuse of company resources and alleged political bias.
It includes media law expert Steven Price and broadcasting figure Bill Francis.
Price is a barrister specialising in media law and lectures at Victoria University of Wellington’s law school. Francis is the Chief Executive of the Radio Broadcasters Association with more than 45 years broadcasting experience. . .
The review panel will be chaired by Brent McAnulty, TVNZ’s Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs, and be joined by others as needed – to provide Maori language expertise, for instance.
The panel will investigate the inappropriate use of TVNZ resources within its Maori and Pacific Programmes department for political means between February 2013 and February 2014.
It will also determine whether any obvious political bias can be identified in the department’s programmes during that period or in Q+A interviews conducted by the former General Manager of Maori and Pacific Programmes, Shane Taurima, during his time on the show (March to November 2012).
He and his colleagues may have grounds to claim to the just announced enquiry, that they thought the employer had acquiesced in their activism, or tacitly approved it. In other words they were simply getting with the programme.
Employment Courts often over-ride terms of employment contracts and express workplace rules, if they’ve been ignored in practice.
State broadcasters work in a milieu of implicit support for the left, and barely suppressed contempt for and suspicion of others. Maori in State broadcasting have been allowed for decades to act as if they’ve had an exemption from Broadcasting Standards requirements for balance. They’ve almost universally acted on a right to promote “Maori aspirations” (often equated to the Maori Party), to call the ‘race card’ on anyone who questions those “aspirations” irrespective of the legal orthodoxy of the question or challenge. . .
It would not take much diligence to find plenty of examples of decades long practice from which Maori broadcasters might assume that the obligations of objectivity and political neutrality were waived for them.
Any regular audience members of Maori and Pacific programmes on TV and radio could find examples to support this view.
Topics chosen, the angle taken on issues, the people chosen to comment on them as well as the questions asked and the way they’re asked can all result in a lack of balance and fairness.
Business as usual can easily be biased, intentionally or not, if a particular world view is accepted without question.
The Green Party wants to be in the main leaders’ debates on television:
. . . The Greens have made a formal request to TV One and TV3 for a co-leader to join the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, rather than take part in the minor parties debate – which has been the typical election format.
The Greens say their 12 percent polling position puts them in a different league to the other smaller parties which are polling around 5 percent or less.
They might be the biggest of the wee parties but neither of their co-leaders is going to be Prime Minister nor lead the opposition.
The National and Labour leaders aren’t invited to debate just because of their parties’ size or popularity but because the winner will lead the country and the other will lead the opposition.
The debates are designed to allow us to see and hear from the PM and the one trying to replace him and mercifully neither of the Green co-leaders will hold either of those positions.
Quote of the day:
“. . . The country’s best-read blogs are all political, they’re all partisan, and they make no apology for it. Indeed, journalists in the mainstream media might learn a thing or two from that: television viewers and newspaper readers would prefer that journalists be transparently partisan than pretend to some high-and-mighty objectivity that nobody can ever really achieve. Everyone has a world view, and it affects how they interpret and report the events around them. That’s called being human. . . . “ Jonathan Milne
Journalists in the mainstream media, especially if it’s state owned, have a duty to be balanced, fair and objective.
That doesn’t mean not having views, it means not letting those views cloud their judgement or influence their work.
Using facilities at a state-owned broadcaster for Labour Party meetings and communications was a serious lapse of judgement.
But the bigger concern is whether there was political influence in editorial and programming decisions and interviews.
TVNZ’s Chief Executive Kevin Kenrick says:
. . . TVNZ will now launch an investigation into staff use of TVNZ resources to support political party activities. It will also review the editorial independence of the Maori and Pacific Programming division during Shane Taurima’s time as manager (February 2013 to February 2014).
The investigation will be led by Brent McAnulty, TVNZ’s Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs and report to me, as TVNZ’s Editor in Chief. Brent will head up a review team that has access to all TVNZ internal resources, and a search has begun to identify a suitably qualified external person to provide an objective and independent critique of our editorial performance.
This investigation will be conducted as a matter of priority but it won’t be a rush job – we’re focussed on carrying out a robust and comprehensive investigation that looks into this matter thoroughly.
The review findings and recommendations will be made publicly available.
Given our position as New Zealand’s most watched news provider we hold ourselves to the highest standards of editorial independence and balance. Clearly a line has been crossed here – it’s unacceptable and we make no excuses for what’s happened.
Our focus now is to clearly and fully understand what has happened; how this happened; and what we need to do to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said she was treated unfairly by Taurima.
. . . Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says she was treated unfairly by TVNZ interviewer Shane Taurima.
The TVNZ unit manager resigned from the state broadcaster yesterday after it was revealed he took part in a Labour Party hui, and that TVNZ property was used to hold party meetings.
Bennett was grilled by Taurima on youth unemployment, in April 2012 on Sunday morning current affairs show Q+A.
“I felt that it was actually really biased,” Bennett told reporters this morning.
“I came out of there and couldn’t work out whether it was anti-National, anti-me, I don’t know what it was.
“It was one of the worst and the least-informative [interviews] for viewers, to be honest, that I’ve ever done in my career … I always felt that he was much tougher on National Maori women … but you have got to be careful that you don’t start over-thinking things, as well.” . .
Good interviewers don’t badger and interrupt.
They ask intelligent questions, listen to the answers and ask more questions.
They are firm, they can be tough, but they must be fair.
Taurima isn’t the only broadcaster who’s had political allegiances, but John Armstrong explains why they are different:
What about Paul Henry? Inevitably questions are being asked – especially by some in a smarting Labour Party – as to what difference in political terms there is between Shane Taurima, who has been forced to resign his management position at TVNZ, and Henry, who unsuccessfully stood for Parliament for National in 1999 but yet has been given his own late-night programme on TV3.
Well, quite a lot actually.
For starters, Henry is but one example of someone starting or resuming a career in broadcasting after a dalliance with politics. You can go back to Brian Edwards who stood for Labour in 1972 but lost narrowly, and Pam Corkery who also briefly hosted a late night TV show, in her case after leaving Parliament.
Labour’s John Tamihere became a talkback jock after losing his seat. John Banks has regularly interchanged political and broadcasting roles, even to the point of holding both at once.
However, all were hired because of their larger-than-life personalities rather than their politics which they were anyway totally upfront about.
Along with Corkery, Henry has shown no inclination to return to politics.
Taurima stood down from his TVNZ role while he sought nomination as the Labour candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection last year. After failing to win selection, he returned to work at TVNZ where he was head of the Maori and Pacific unit.
Given his management role in news and current affairs, TVNZ’s senior management should have sought assurances he had no intentions of standing for Parliament again.
TVNZ was aware, however, that Taurima was considering standing in another Maori seat at this year’s election. At that point, Taurima should have been confronted with two choices: either sever your political affiliations or quit TVNZ. . .
Act MP John Banks has used the issue to ask a very good question – why do we have state television?
TV3’s revelation that Shane Taurima, TVNZ’s former manager of the Maori and Pacific Programmes unit, hosted a Labour Party meeting last year on the broadcaster’s property and involving other TVNZ staff, shows another good reason why TVNZ should be sold, said ACT MP John Banks.
“This issue is not Mr Taurima’s politics. It is the fact that he and some of his staff wrongly used taxpayer’s property to further his political objectives” said Mr Banks.
“The easiest fix is for the taxpayer to get out of the television business. TVNZ should be sold.
“There is no reason for the State to be in the risky television business. We should sell now because TVNZ will soon be worthless as a result of technology changes.
“In private media if a journalist pursues a political agenda using company resources that is solely a matter for the management, shareholders and advertisers.
“If TVNZ were in private ownership no one would care about Mr Taurima’s Labour Party activities on the premises” said Mr Banks.
Are Maori and Pacific programmes on television politically neutral?
Several times when I’ve watched the Maori news programme Te Karere, or Tangata Pacifica I’ve wondered if they were biased towards the left in general and Labour in particular. Revelations by TV3 add fuel to my suspicions:
3 News can reveal state broadcaster TVNZ is being used as a campaign base by Labour Party activists.
They’ve even held a meeting in TVNZ’s Maori and Pacific Unit aimed at fundraising for Labour.
The unit’s manager, Shane Taurima, has held ambitions to become a Labour MP and his staff have been arranging Labour Party business, using TVNZ facilities like email.
Mr Taurima has resigned following the revelation.
Mr Taurima’s a Labour Party activist. He could be standing as a Labour MP this election.
Documents obtained by 3 News show the state broadcaster is being used to help Labour’s cause.
Labour’s electorate committee for the Auckland Maori seat Tamaki Makarau has been using TVNZ as a base.
Last year, a meeting was held at the Maori and Pacific unit’s Hobson headquarters, next to TVNZ’s main building, with Labour Party activists swiped through security.
On the agenda was “fundraising” – making money for the Labour Party.
The unit produces news, current affairs and documentary programmes like Te Karere, Marae Investigates and Waka Huia. Mr Taurima has managerial and editorial control. . .
Using a workplace for political, or any other activity, without the employers’ permission is wrong but that would be between the employer and staff in a private business.
This employer isn’t a private business. It’s a publicly funded state broadcaster which is supposed to provide fair, balanced and politically neutral reporting.
Is it my bias which makes some of the Maori and Pacific programmes seem biased or has the political activism of some employees influenced what’s been broadcast?
The national in RadioNZ National has nothing to do with the party, it’s used in the sense of nationwide.
TVNZ’s board and management must ensure that anything to do with labour at the state broadcaster is in the sense of work, not the party or politics.
A media release on Scoop:
Alastair Thompson resigns from Internet Party role
Friday, 24 January 2014, 5:35 pm
Press Release: Alastair Thompson
January 24 2014
Scoop website co-founder Alastair Thompson has resigned as interim general secretary of the Internet Party.
Mr Thompson is not available for further comment.
Kim Dotcom used to enjoy favourable media attention which gave the impression he could do no wrong.
But since the announcement of his party he seems to have the reverse Midas touch – turning everything the party touches into dross.
Discussion with Jim Mora on Critical Mass today was sparked off by:
* Three destructive behaviours we all fall back on when arguing and how to fix them. The suggestions solutions sound easy in theory, the challenge will be to remember and apply them in practice.
Everyone, please, put down the sherry and get a hold of yourselves. A dose of reality is necessary as the political year really kicks off this week. In the vacuum of the summer season, some fantasies about the outcome of this year’s election have taken seed.
Smacking is not going to be a defining election issue just because Conservative Party leader Craig says it is. He is the leader of a minor party, outside of Parliament.
Once the election campaign proper starts, and the mainstream party machines kick into gear, Craig will find he has to do more than put on a tinfoil hat to get media attention.
Speaking of crackpot strategies, was it the electoral roll of a parallel universe that was going to return Martyn Bradbury ahead of cabinet minister Nikki Kaye or Labour high-flier Jacinda Ardern in Auckland Central?
And since when did left-wing activists like Bradbury start whoring themselves out to businessmen who want to use their vast wealth to exert influence over the political and justice system? . . .
But perhaps we could wait until his policies and candidates are unveiled before prophesising his likely effect on the polls? . . .
Thankfully other commentators have failed to swallow whatever it is that blinds some to Dotcom’s faults.
There’s a reason why Kim Dotcom, Brendan Horan and Colin Craig are getting so many headlines right now: All the other politicians are on holiday, and simply don’t give a stuff.
They’re either at their beach houses or overseas, and politics is the last thing on their mind. . . .
So, right now those three are taking their chances with the media, but they will soon have to compete with the big boys and girls for space. It will get that much harder. . .
An internet party got seven percent in Germany, so his Internet Party can’t be written off. But it’s had a woeful start with a hopelessly organised failed launch. Still, it kept him on the front page, I suppose.
The Internet Party will be a place to put your protest vote against John Key, the spies, the establishment and the ruling elite. It could well be a party for those that feel disconnected to the mainstream, disconnected to politics and disenfranchised overall. That makes it a potential threat. But what will it ever achieve? Who will lead it? If Bomber Bradbury is its main advisor – where the hell is it heading? . . .
Sean Plunket says the internet party is amateur and vain:
The imminent but aborted birth of the country’s newest political party this week has been one of the most bizarre non-events in recent political history.
From the first tweet-fuelled rumblings of the human headline that is Kim Dotcom to the ignominious cancellation of the launch party, it has been a study in the politics of naivety and a glowing example of the gullibility of certain sections of the New Zealand news media and public. . .
What shortens the odds however is an uncritical celebrity-obsessed media full of self-appointed pundits and commentators who seem more than happy to entertain the idea that Kim Dotcom and his cronies might actually represent some meaningful and significant change in New Zealand’s political landscape.
Whilst it might rob the tabloid headline writers and breathless young television reporters of meaningless fodder for their daily dross, the cruel truth is as it stands the Internet Party is little more than an amateurish exercise in vanity politics perpetrated by a publicity-seeking convicted criminal. . .
Colin Espiner also says vanity is driving him:
. . . behind the ice creams and the fireworks, the offers to fund our next America’s Cup challenge or a new submarine fibre-optic internet cable, the extravagant parties to which we’re all invited and promises of free wi-fi for all, lies a narcissist desperate for popularity, relevance, and above all, respect.
It’s my opinion that Dotcom’s constant quest for omnipotence stems from his desire to make us – and the rest of the world – understand the value of his achievements (and they are many) while forgetting his criminal past as a computer hacker and convicted fraudster. . .
Fortunately for him, there was a ready audience, thanks to worldwide alarm at the antics of the US over its multi-national bulk spying via mass data collector PRISM and its subsequent exposure by whistle-blower Edward Snowden – and other spying scandals uncovered by WikiLeaks and its publisher Julian Assange.
Dotcom has been quick to associate himself with both. . .
Dotcom likes the parallels: all are fugitives from justice; campaigners for freedom of information; anti-state and pro-privacy.
The difference, however, between Dotcom and Assange and Snowden is that they released top-secret information held by governments and corporations because they believed it was in the public interest. They did it for free and they did it knowing they were likely to be arrested for it.
Dotcom presided over the world’s largest pirate website, which was shut down for repeated copyright violations he claimed to know nothing about. He made a fortune from it, and he has claimed that while he suspected Hollywood would come after him in the civil courts he never anticipated criminal prosecution.
Many seem to have missed the distinction. Dotcom to them is a hero, a wronged man, a champion of cheap internet and free speech. Money has helped him get the media onside. He cooperated with Herald journalist David Fisher for a largely favourable book about him, thus also ensuring ongoing coverage from the country’s biggest newspaper.
He’s courted other journalists, too . . .
But assuming it does eventually arrive, will Dotcom’s Internet Party wreak havoc on the election result? Actually, I don’t think so.
Dotcom’s political publicity vehicle is likely to appeal to internet-savvy young people alienated from mainstream politics who haven’t voted before. Therefore it’s unlikely to pull support off the existing major and minor parties. So unless it reaches the 5 per cent threshold – a huge hurdle – or wins an electorate seat, that first-time vote will simply end up wasted.
Because Dotcom himself can’t stand, the chances of any other candidate put up by him winning a seat in their own right are extremely slim.
But that won’t bother Dotcom. His endgame is not a career in politics. . .
Cynicism suggests Dotcom’s motivation is more about ego and self-interest. . .
By naming his party the Internet Party Dotcom ghettoises himself around a narrow set of issues. . .
Until now, Dotcom has had a dream run from the media. He has become a folk hero. But now he is in the political arena, he’ll get a rude shock. He’ll be treated like every other politician.
The perception Dotcom will have to overcome is that the Internet Party isn’t some plaything of a rich egotist who made mega-millions exploiting other people’s talent and creativity without paying for their work. . .
Dotcom hopefully knows voters want their political parties to serve the people, not platforms for rich men seeking self-aggrandisement. New Zealanders are old-fashioned like that.
Dotcom wouldn’t be the only would-be politician to be driven by vanity but those who make it have a lot stronger foundation on which to build their campaigns than that.
Now the silly season is about to close he’ll find the media have a few more serious contenders and issues on which to focus too.
It’s election year and one of the topics exercising the media and political tragics is the election date.
Electoral law dictates the last day on which an election can be held, there is no legal barrier to an earlier one.
The Herald says parties are preparing for an early election:
. . . Sources say Key wants to hold the election before November’s G20 leaders’ meeting in Brisbane and Apec Summit in Beijing.
He will also want to avoid clashing with home All Black games in August and early September, the final Bledisloe Cup test on October 18, and Labour Weekend, the final weekend of October. . .
Pundits are betting on September 27 or one of the first two Saturdays in October.
The All Blacks play Argentina on the first of those dates – although it will be in Argentina which will make it a Sunday morning game here.
But those dates are all in school holidays. The last day of term three is September 26th and the first of term four is October 13th.
More people are likely to be away from home during that time which would necessitate more special votes or make it more likely people wouldn’t both to vote at all.
Three years ago Prime Minister John Key announced the date in February, a welcome change from the game-playing which previous governments usually indulged in over the announcement.
Whichever date it is, an early announcement puts all parties on an equal footing and makes it much easier for the Electoral Commission which runs the election and has employ and train staff, and book venues for polling booths.
Back to the Herald story – the only people interviewed are Labour leader David Cunliffe and Kim Dotcom.
The former is already admitting that his party won’t be as popular as National:
. . . Cunliffe said he would be happy to be sworn in as a Labour prime minister with fewer seats than National, relying instead on the support of the Greens.
“The prime minister should be the leader of the governing coalition. The governing coalition should have the most seats in Parliament. That is the constitutional position and the proper one.” . . .
Ignoring all other party leaders and going for one whose party isn’t yet registered and whose attempted launch turned into a farce says more about the media’s fascination about Dotcom than it does about the likely election date.
The strong links between Scoop journalist and the Internet Party have raised questions about its claim to be the leading independent news publication in New Zealand:
Scoop.co.nz is New Zealand’s leading news resource for news-makers and the people that influence the news (as opposed to a news site for “news consumers”).
It brings together the information that is creating the news as it is released to the media, and is therefore a hub of intelligence for the professionals (not just media) that shape what we read.
Scoop.co.nz presents all the information driving the news of the day in the form it is delivered to media creating a “no spin” media environment and one that provides the full context of what is “reported” as news later in the day.
It’s audience has a circle of influence far greater than the number of reported readers, which averages more than 450 000 a month, and it is a key part of the New Zealand media landscape.
Scoop.co.nz is accredited to the New Zealand Parliament Press Gallery and fed by a multitude of Business, Non-Government-Organisation, Regional Government and Public Relations communication professionals.
We are the leading independent news publication in New Zealand and value our independence strongly. . .
It does present media releases as they are written without editing.
But anyone familiar with opinion pieces from the likes of Gordon Campbell would be aware of a left-wing bias.
There’s nothing wrong with a bias in a media organisation like this providing it is declared.
Apropos of which I note that in the on-line version of Josie Pagani’s tale of two stories she is described as a political commentator, communications consultant, and former Labour candidate.
The print edition just called her a political commentator and communications consultant.
Omitting the reference to her former candidacy in the print edition did a disservice to readers who are entitled to know the bias of a political commentator.
The Internet Party hasn’t even been launched and it’s already getting headlines for all the wrong reasons - Whaleoil has a scoop revealing its strategy:
The strategy paper (below) reveals that Martyn Bradbury is working for Kim Dotcom and is charging him $8000 per month plus GST for political strategy, on top of a $5000 payment to allow him to upgrade his computer, cellphone and tablet devices. . .
Further, the strategy document, which Trotter so clearly expands upon, shows that Martyn Bradbury intends to stand in Auckland Central as the Internet Party candidate, and be paid for the privilege of doing so. His strategy document outlines the need to establish an office.
The media compromise:
However the subterfuge is deeper than that. Sources have revealed that Scoop Media’s General Manager Alistair Thompson is to be the Party Secretary and has already registered the domain names under the Scoop Media banner. Scoop Media is also the name server registrant for the domain name and also that of internetparty.co.nz . . .
- Martyn Bradbury to stand in Auckland Central
- Martyn Bradbury on payroll for $8000 per month plus $5000 advance payment for technology upgrades
- Graeme Edgeler produced a report, allegedly for $3000
- Plans for so far unnamed candidate in Upper Harbour, reputedly a broadcaster.
- Focus on Auckland Central and Upper Harbour
- Plans to win at least 3 seats
If I was drawing up a long list of people to attract votes from the right in general and National in particular, Bradbury’s name wouldn’t be on it.
If he stands and gets any votes he’ll be getting them from the left.
This isn’t a party that is likely to threaten the right, it’s another depositary for disenchanted left-leaning votes.
It’s also one that can’t even get it’s launch right:
Presumably someone told Dotcom about that the party to launch his party would be considered treating which is an offence under electoral law.
The scoop though, is great for Whaleoil who has already collected another scalp with it:
Journalist Alastair Thompson has resigned from internet-based news service Scoop this afternoon in the wake of claims he was to be Internet Party general-secretary and had registered a domain name.
Scoop’s controlling shareholder, Selwyn Pellett, confirmed he had not previously been aware of the extent of Thompson’s involvement with the party.
After the blog became public, Thompson tendered his resignation.
Pellett said that while he understood Thompson’s passion for internet freedom, there was a clear conflict of interest with his journalism. . . .
Cameron Slater is defending a judgement that he isn’t a journalist and therefore doesn’t have the protection journalists do in not revealing sources.
If publishing a scoop like this isn’t journalism, what is it?
Update: – tweet of the day on this issue:
Guyon Espiner is to replace Geoff Robinson when he retires from Morning report next year.
. . . Espiner has been a political editor for Television New Zealand and the Sunday Star-Times, and has presented TVNZ’s Q + A programme on Sundays.
He also worked on TV3 programmes The Vote and 3rd Degree and has been in journalism for 20 years.
Radio New Zealand’s chief executive Paul Thompson described Espiner as an incisive interviewer with an impressive career and impeccable journalistic credentials. . . .
When I did the Kellogg Rural Leadership programme we visited Radio NZ while Morning Report was on air and were able to speak to Robinson afterwards.
I asked him what made a good interviewer, he said, one of the most important attributes was being a good listener.
Has TVNZ has decided Seven Sharp isn’t sharp enough?
BREAKING Hosking & Toni Street to do 7Sharp. Mau & Tamati gone. Nadine to do Breakfast with Rawdon. Serious angst breakout at TVNZ.—
Bill Ralston (@BillyRalston) December 17, 2013
The changes can’t have anything to do with the Broadcasting Standards Authority ordering TVNZ to apologise for “personal abuse masquerading as satire” about Conservative Party leader Colin Craig.
Jesse Mulligan who delivered the diatribe is staying on the show.
The programme got bad reviews before it started.
I warmed to it after it gave the title of the country’s Sharpest Town to Oamaru.
But the programme never fired and TV3′s Campbell Live became the default for anything resembling harder news stories.
The changes have prompted a bit of a media merry-go-round.
Seven Sharp presenter Ali Mau is leaving TVNZ’s light current affairs evening show to host a RadioLIVE programme with Willie Jackson.
The pair will host a new early afternoon show. . .
Jackson previously hosted an afternoon RadioLIVE show with John Tamihere, but both were taken off air after an interview with an alleged friend of a Roast Busters victim.
Tamihere will not be returning to RadioLIVE next year.
The ODT and NZ Herald often run the same columns.
Today they both published one by Bob Jones.
The ODT subs did what they were supposed to do and edited out a paragraph in which Jones delighted in a protester committing suicide after he’d told him to.
But where were the Herald subs? They left the offending paragraph in until readers reacted.
The ODT column isn’t on-line. The Herald’s edited version is now with an apology for causing offence to some readers.
Keeping Stock has the original version.
Jones enjoys a reputation for blunt speaking and writing but he crossed a line with this column. The Herald subs ought to have realised that and edited it, as the ODT ones did.
Discussion with Jim Mora on Critical Mass today was sparked off by:
* A Peculiar Christmas Feast and the 4th Wise Man from Valerie Davies, one of my favourite bloggers.
* If you need some inspiration for your resolutions try the New Year’s resolution generator.
The 10 shortlisted finalists in Massey’s annual Quote of the Year competition have been chosen and are open to public vote:
Dr Heather Kavan, Massey’s speech writing specialist, started the competition three years ago because she found her speech-writing students had trouble identifying memorable lines.
. . . “The quotes I knew were too old for the students. Edmund Hilary’s “We knocked the bastard off” was said in 1953. Muldoon’s one-liner about Kiwis going to Australia “raising the IQ of both countries” and Lange’s “I can smell the uranium on your breath” quip were both said in the 1980s.
“I thought there must be some good contemporary New Zealand quotes, but no-one is collecting them.”
Dr Kavan and her judging panel narrowed down several dozen entries nominated throughout the year by Massey students and the general public to a top 10.
She describes the judging criteria: “Memorability is paramount. The gay rainbow line with its colourful imagery is a good example of this. However, many of the quotes appealed for different reasons. The GCSB one stood out because it was funny and most people can relate to having a frustrating experience with a government department.
“We were also keen to get quotes that were relatively spontaneous, such as Winston Peters’ ‘What didn’t he know and when didn’t he know it?’
“Another criterion was context. We chose ‘He’s an extraordinarily lucky cat’ because Moomoo’s story made international headlines and even the word ‘extraordinarily’ seemed like an understatement.” . . .
The shortlisted quotes are:
• If there was a dickhead that night, it was me – MP Aaron Gilmore reflecting on how he got intoxicated and called a waiter a ‘Dickhead’ at the Heritage Hotel in Hamner Springs.
• Why are you going red, Prime Minister? – Kim Dotcom at the Parliamentary enquiry into the GCSB spying on New Zealand residents.
I’m not, why are you sweating? – Key’s reply to Kim Dotcom.
• The GCSB, the only government department that will actually listen to you – Unknown origin but repeated on social media.
• Male writers tend to get asked what they think and women what they feel – Man Booker prize winning novelist, New Zealand’s Eleanor Catton.
• I’m not a spreadsheet with hair – Auckland singer/songwriter Lorde.
• What didn’t he know and when didn’t he know it? – Winston Peters querying John Key’s knowledge of the Parliamentary Service’s actions.
• In New Zealand nobody takes you seriously unless you can make them yawn – author James McNeish at the Auckland Writers and Readers Festival.
• That little ball of fluff you own is a natural born killer – Gareth Morgan’s Cats to Go campaign website.
• He’s an extraordinarily lucky cat – Massey University veterinary surgeon Dr Jonathan Bray after removing a crossbow bolt from the head of Wainuiomata cat Moomoo.
• One of the messages that I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought. Well, in the Pakuranga electorate this morning it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate – Cabinet minister Maurice Williamson in his speech to Parliament supporting the gay marriage law.
Voting closes at 5pm on Thursday December 19, with the winner announced on December 20.
Cameron Slater who runs Whaleoil has been ordered by a judge to reveal his sources because his blog “isn’t a news medium”.
But media law expert says he has a good case to appeal.
. . . Media lawyer Steven Price says he appears to have a good case because the act defines a news medium as one that disseminates news, which he says Whale Oil does.
And he said, a recent Law Commission report talks about bloggers being important to free speech.
A paper on media law at university while studying journalism more than three decades ago doesn’t make me a media law expert.
But I went to the dictionary and found the definition of news:newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events.
Whale Oil breaks a lot of stories which appears to fit that definition.
Discussion with Jim Mora on Critical Mass today was sparked by:
I especially liked:
Women like silent men. They think they’re listening. Marcel Archard
It was a man’s world. Then Eve arrived. Richard Armour
Even if man could understand women he still wouldn’t believe it. AW Brown
Labour leader David Cunliffe has appointed his cousin, Simon Cunliffe as his media director and chief press secretary.
Anyone who read Simon’s opinion pieces when he worked for the ODT would be in no doubt that his sympathies lay firmly in the red end of the political spectrum.
Having lived in Dunedin he might also be more aware of the valuable opportunity his cousin let go when he refused a regular slot on the Farming Show in case he wasn’t given and fair go and would be laughed at.
Admitting he couldn’t foot it on the Farming Show was a tactical blunder for several reasons.
It made him look precious. It opened the opportunity for Green co-leader Russel Norman to take the slot he turned down.
It made the sudden interest he and his party are trying to show in the regions look shallow.
The high price commanded by advertising slots proves it’s the place to be if you want to talk to people outside the big cities and now it’s on Radio Sport in metropolitan centres too it also has a reasonable urban audience.
A few tweets provide another perspective on the news:
What's the collective noun for a group of Cunliffes? Suggestions on a postcard please. My vote is for "a dither of Cunliffes"—
Marcus Cook (@MarcusDCook) November 18, 2013
Shouldn't Labour have had one male Cunliffe and one female Cunliffe?—
Marcus Cook (@MarcusDCook) November 18, 2013
David Cunliffe hires Simon Cunliffe as press sec. C1 and C2?—
Guyon Espiner (@GuyonEspiner) November 18, 2013