Why would a newspaper which wants to be taken seriously waste its front page lead on a story about someone most people don’t know?
A politician’s private life might be fair game, that of their families generally isn’t.
If this storyis of itnerest to the public, they need to get lives. It’s certainly not in the public interest.
I’m deliberately not using names nor am I making a link. The purpose of this post is to criticise the paper not to give more unwanted publicity to the story and the people who feature in it.
Homepaddock 
I disagree. There is a perception that these things only happen to fiends and losers. It’s time to recognise that everyone is on drugs.
LikeLike
This is a story, because it again demonstrates that there is a rapid development of different classes in this country, those that can get away with illegal behavior and those who can’t.
The distinction between these classes is governed by connections and money. One for all, doesn’t mean that anymore and nothing that Phill Goff says can change that fact.
LikeLike
Will is right but Bez sees the greater story.
The fact that Phil Goff seemingly can pull strings and his daughter gets off with it.
It makes you wonder what other scandals Liarbour ministers have covered up over the years.
Is National involved too?
LikeLike
Politicians influence and politicians legislate. So it is a matter of public interest when one of their own gets caught by laws that they defend and perpetuate. And as others are commenting there is a very real issue about why his daughter escaped consequences others wouldn’t. Goff could have used this incident as a catalyst for some geuine debate around drug prohibition.
LikeLike
No, the real story has nothing to do with wild conspiracy theories or with the fellow’s daughter.
The real story which most certainly is in the public interest is the inane, inept and foolish way the story has been handled by a person who should never have spoken to the media other than to say “No comment, this is private and personal.”
LikeLike
Will – “It’s time to recognise that everyone is on drugs.”
Given many drugs are legal yes, but not everyone is on illegal drugs.
Bez & Lindsay – there may be a story about different people getting different treatment, but that’s not the angle in this one, it was simply because of who her father is.
FM – There’s nothing in the story about anyone pullings trings. I’m sure offspring of people across the political specturm do things their parents would rather they didn’t, some of which might be illegal.
Adolf – in this case he’d have be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
LikeLike
Agree wholeheartedly Ele. Keeping Stock is not even going to report that there IS a story, much less report any details.
LikeLike
Given many drugs are legal yes, but not everyone is on illegal drugs.
And that’s the circular logic that proves so hard to break. Illegal drugs are illegal because they’re illegal. Through act and omission, the laws do not make sense. And they shouldn’t bend through a bit of who’s your father either.
LikeLike
“Bez & Lindsay – there may be a story about different people getting different treatment, but that’s not the angle in this one, it was simply because of who her father is.”
How do you separate the two? What bearing does one have on the other? I am not without sympathy for the family but Goff needs to recognise that it was the law creating the harm. Not his daughter’s taste for ecstacy. Instead he panders to the moral majority by insisting his daughter never, never took drugs. Weak.
LikeLike
Will – there is no evidence in the story to suggest she got off because of who her father is.
Lindsay – a story dealing with how a sufficient number of people were treated to show that who you are does or doesn’t make a difference would make who her father is relevant. But that’s not the story which was published.
LikeLike
Good point, Ele. It would be interesting to know what the other busted people got sentenced.
LikeLike
Geez! It didn’t even say what size the bra was.
Nor any pictures of the contents.
Wouldn’t make page 3 in a decent Sunday paper.
LikeLike
Three points:
1. “there is no evidence in the story to suggest she got off because of who her father is.” This all happened in Oz, so the judge would not have had any idea who her father was.
2. As drug offending goes, four E pills rates a “vanishingly small”. Yes it is illegal but it is the equivalent of going 10k over the speed limit: one shouldn’t do it, but practically everybody does. If it had been P, that would be a story.
3. The byline is that of the ever-unreliable Jonathan Marshall, so the story probably isn’t even true.
LikeLike