Foot in mouth and into the Brown stuff

Russell Brown has replied to put me right. He criticised One News for saying that pets are still allowed in and out of Waiheke Island despite a MAF quarantine (the MAF media release warning reporters that cats and dogs are no threat is here). Well, as long as they haven't been around cloven-hooved animals that is correct. But that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to these comments of his and the thinking behind them:

"Owen Poland... told Judy Bailey, [he] called six of the farmers on the island "and without exception, none of these people have heard nothing from the authorities this afternoon," that is, in the 90 minutes since the announcement.

He said that the largest landholder was unhappy at not being personally contacted by authorities, but "as a precaution, he's cancelled two truckloads of cattle going off the island for sale tomorrow." Well, no. As a precaution, MAF had already banned any movement of livestock and risk materials off the island."

and later this:

"It's simply not good enough for the national broadcaster to be questioning the official response even as it tosses out panicky misinformation of this kind."

Is it too much to ask that MAF inform the farmers concerned first rather than the media? As for MAF already banning movements all they had done at that stage was issue a piece of paper saying they were doing that not actually having implemented it on the ground. If the farmer did not know because he had not been told MAF could have issued any official document in Wellington they liked, the fact is he could have been barging his entire heard to the mainland regardless of any "ban" that may have existed on paper.

To some people the government just has to log it in their official correspondence and it automatically equates to action. Not so, as proved by Mr Poland. Brown's scathing criticism of "questioning the official response" is exactly what they media should be doing. Did Poland drop the ball on the pet issue - yes, but that was not my point. The point is Brown's attitude of assured confidence and trust in state agencies (except One News!) and his criticism of those who do not hold that automatic assumption.

He seems increasingly guilty of all the faults of the "mainstream" media in recording everything the State agencies, Police etc. do as presumably correct and above criticism and assuming that their pronouncements in themselves constitute facts and/or concrete action. His views seem inconsistent with his "hard news" brand and supposed reputation for media criticism. People say he crossed over to the dark side many years ago. The evidence suggests he has.