- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Double Standards?


Who didn't know the Standard was written by a bunch of Labour Party insiders, just as Kiwi Blogh is written by a bunch of National Party insiders - Mike Williams was a dick to have put his hand up to pay for it, it's not his to pay for, it's a blog site that clearly states what it is and people can post comments and debate things, that's political opinion, a blog is a transcript of a pub argument, and carry’s all the weight of a pub argument. Blogs are not covered by the EFB, we live in a free country and you are free to have an opinion and 'speak' it to the world via a blog, and other people have the ability to enter into debate and put their opinion across, if we need more of anything it is more dialogue between citizens, not less!
The EFB is there to protect Democracy from Plutocracy, now that doesn't defend the appalling way in which Labour went about passing this two headed mutant legislation, my God they had 80 amendments to their own law for crying out loud, but to deny the need for Democracy to guard against the undue influence of the moneyed elite with cries of 'self interest' at Labour are just the height of audacity. National has a huge amount of self interest in hiding who funds them and those wealthy businessmen who are wanting policy implementation to help their pork barrel incorporated have a massive amount of self interest in remaining anonymous, and as for the Herald's 'Democracy under attack' nonsense, isn't it really 'Herald's profits under attack'? Because any reduction in advertising spending is going to hit the largest daily circulation newspaper in the country now isn’t it?
Seeing as the protest against the EFB is supposedly from 'ordinary NZers', let's also start becoming self interested, and it is in our self interest as individuals in a Society to not allow the 10% who own 50% make the decisions for the 90% rest of us. How many 'ordinary' NZers would have $12 000 per month to spend on advertising their political opinion anyway? None, that's why this isn't about free speech, it's about paid speech.

20 Comments:

At 24/1/08 9:49 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KEYS $3 MILLION LEADERS FUND COVERS THE FEES AT ST CUTHS.BUT THE HILLARY FAMILY ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF "PORK BARREL POLITICS" GOING TO SEE THE QUEEN ON THE TAXPAYER WITH THE PM TAGGING ALONG FOR THE RIDE BACK TO LONDON FOR THE THIRD TIME IN UNDER 6 MONTHS!

 
At 24/1/08 10:11 am, Anonymous JP said...

Someone buy Bomber a paragraph or two!

Yes it was obvious they were a bunch of Labour party apologists. However, the key thing for me is how evasive they have been about accepting substantial assistance from a political party while simultaneously proclaiming themselves unbiased and attacking others with more tenuous links to other parties. Even that uber-right winger Russel Brown has called it messy and hypocritical.

While you are applying your "ordinary NZr" test, perhaps you could tell us how many other kiwis are getting gold plated webservers on the cheap from the government to disseminate their ideas? And if the answer is none then why isn't the Standard "paid speech".

 
At 24/1/08 11:03 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many 'ordinary' NZers would have $12 000 per month to spend on advertising their political opinion anyway? None, that's why this isn't about free speech, it's about paid speech.

Nice straw-man arguement there Bomber. Very few 'ordinary' individuals would spend that amount of money, but quite few groups of individuals would easily spend that much money - e.g. the forsetry industry, environmental groups etc. SHould groups of like minded people not be allowed to pool their resources? If so please come right out and say so.

Who didn't know the Standard was written by a bunch of Labour Party insiders..

I didn't, they've never admitted they were and in fact I believe some of them havve denied they've ever belonged to the Labour party, they've certainly never disclosed any connection until they got exposed.

....just as Kiwi Blogh is written by a bunch of National Party insiders

Well Farrar has never made this any secret has he? The difference is bloody obvious, and if the shoe was on the other foot you would be screaming blue fucking murder about Hollow men and such. The left scored an own goal on this one - suck it up.

 
At 24/1/08 2:15 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Nice straw-man arguement there Bomber. Very few 'ordinary' individuals would spend that amount of money, but quite few groups of individuals would easily spend that much money - e.g. the forsetry industry, environmental groups etc. SHould groups of like minded people not be allowed to pool their resources? If so please come right out and say so.

Oh so it's not about 'ordinary nzers' and their right to have an opinion, it's interest parties with vested interests and their opinions, I'm glad we agree, let's definatly put a cap on that.

I didn't, they've never admitted they were and in fact I believe some of them have denied they've ever belonged to the Labour party, they've certainly never disclosed any connection until they got exposed.

Then perhaps you need to read the fine print that we've posted here, I'm sure some of them are, and some of them are not Labour party-ites, as that great right wing blogger Tim Selwyn put it...."It's all humbug of course. It clearly says at the top of The Standard's sidebar that it is the labour movement's reborn online newspaper. Obviously it's operated by people from the Labour Party. They pretty much say so directly...as for the 'exposed' bit - yawn, please tell me you have more than this?

Well Farrar has never made this any secret has he?
That's one thing we can agree on

The difference is bloody obvious, and if the shoe was on the other foot you would be screaming blue fucking murder about Hollow men and such.
No, I don't really see how you've managed to jump to the Hollow Men, but hey while we are at it, did you Support National under Don Brash and his Maaaaaarrri get too much stuff (I mean while we are bringing up the holy book, let's read from it) - did it hurt to find out that all that "Maaaaaaarrrriii get too much" stuff was all a lie? Did you even bother to question while you cheered the rise in their poll numbers based on racism and lies? Or did you just post a couple of anonymous posts on blogs, really, I'd love to know.

The left scored an own goal on this one - suck it up.

Charming but a wee bit dull.

 
At 24/1/08 2:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe ill bankroll a prosecution of the Standard under the EFA. I'll chuck some money at that. Tane in Jail......priceless

 
At 24/1/08 3:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a blog, as such it doesn't have to register does it?

 
At 24/1/08 3:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WILLIE JACKSON IS OVER-EXPOSED IN THE MEDIA WITH ALL THE RIGHT-WING POLLIES COMING ON BOARD TO DISH THE DIRT AND GET THE BASH.WAATEA PLAYS HITS FROM THE SEVENTIES AND PRE-RECORDED INTERVIEWS TO "CLOSE THE GAPS".MEANWHILE BACK IN THE MAINSTREAM THEY WORK FOR A LIVING LIKE ANYBODY ELSE IT'S JUST THAT THE LITTLE TOP UP ON THE SIDE IS GOING TOWARDS $5000.00 A TERM AT KINGS COLLEGE AND PAYING THE MILLION DOLLAR MORTGAGE ON EX-P.M SIR DAVID LANGE'S MANGERE BRIDGE MANSION.BUT I STILL THINK WE'RE MATES.THAT'S 'THE MAORI'S' FOR YA?

 
At 24/1/08 3:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh so it's not about 'ordinary nzers' and their right to have an opinion, it's interest parties with vested interests and their opinions, I'm glad we agree, let's definatly put a cap on that.

Why shouldn't interst groups be allowed to spend their own money? What is your opposition to this? Sure you'll bang on about exclusive bretheren and co but what about others like environmental groups, recreational fishermen, any one of hundreds of other groups that have valid opinions that'll never be heard if they don't band together? Why do you hate them so much?
Why should Labour be allowed to secretly support interest groups and no one else?


Well russell Brown thinks they "They pretty much say so directly.." means fuck all - they either say so directly or they don't, there's no "pretty much" about this, and in this case they never disclosed which is why they are getting stung. Being part of the labour movement doesn't make you a member of the Labour Party or a supporter of it, don't try and pretend that that's some sort of disclosure.

as for the 'exposed' bit

You clearly haven't seen the squiming from Tane and co when this was revealed.


You:"Blah blah Don Brash blah blah Maaaaaaaris blah blah"

Try to stay on topic mate, that's got nothing to do with this fiasco, and it is a fiasco or you wouldn't have quickly scribbled out a breathless couple of hundred word essay trying to turn this around and make the issue about these shadowy "interest groups" you are so terrified of.

Charming but a wee bit dull.
Unecessarily trite old boy.

 
At 24/1/08 3:57 pm, Anonymous the sprout said...

nice article bomber. shame about the quality of its critics' comments.

 
At 24/1/08 8:14 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

Do not EVER confuse me with Russell Brown, Anon 3:19pm. EVER! Now I'm unfairly and disproportionately angered... ANGERED!!!

Let's be clear about what I am now going to explain to you here: I'm not concerned with how much money it costs the Labour Party to provide a server to the Standard blog, I'm not concerned about the party membership status of the blog authors, I'm not concerned about the anonymity of the authors, I'm not concerned with the EFA requirements in relation to whatever the declaration procedures are in relation to blogs, I'm not even concerned about the comments that may or may not have been made by the Standard bloggers themselves about it - I'm only concerned with what the Standard blog says about itself: because that is the most obvious way of assessing it's publicly declared relationship to any political party - which is what this most retarded of all issues is all about.

Read the fucking thing! I can't believe I have to explain it. It's right there! It's always been there, they didn't stick it on yesterday - it has always been there. In front of you. Read it. Now let's go through it because it's just so amazingly basic:

"About"
- it says, so it's about the blog. OK. It describes the blog and is intended to convey a message to readers about what it is. This is not hidden away on another page - you don't have to click on it - it is simply at the top left corner of their blog's front page. OK. Now immediately underneath it... I haven't lost you yet? have I? No, good... not confused about the word "about" and the meaning of it in relation to a blog? No? Good, OK... underneath it it says:

"The New Zealand labour movement"
- so this tells us it is about the labour movement in NZ. The fourth word in the permanent text on the front page of this blog is labour. OK. LABOUR. Still with me? It refers to a "labour movement" which we find mentioned in wikipedia in the entry for the NZ Labour Party:
This time, all major factions of the labour movement agreed to unite, establishing the modern Labour Party. The Labour Party. We find that the contemporary labour movement is embodied by the Council of Trade Unions:
The NZCTU is often linked to the Labour Party... many unions are formally affiliated to the Labour Party. Furthermore, the Secretary of the NZCTU speaks at the annual conference of the Labour Party. This is all common knowledge. The labour movement and the labour party are linked through history and inter-linking and over-lapping memberships all of which is open and public and commented often.

"used to have its own newspaper"
- so this labour movement previously had a newspaper - and the CTU website refers to The Standard as "the Labour Party’s newspaper". We good so far?

"A group of us"
- indicating more than one person and referring to "us" as presumably, well obviously, being part of that "labour movement" in the first sentence because "us" could not really refer to anyone else.

"thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0"
- so this newspaper of the Labour Party has been recreated by this group of people connected to the Labour Party.

Now, to re-cap: They state they are a group that must by any definition include the Labour Party and that is called by the same name of the Labour Party newspaper. Right?

So what would any rational, normal, average, ordinary person conclude from that very simple two sentence statement? That the bloggers at the Standard are maybe...
from the National Party?
from the Act Party?
from the United Future Party?
from the Maori Party?
etc.
etc.
etc.
or are they from the Labour Party?

If you can't work it out you are a retard. A retard. It's an ugly word and I rarely use it. But if you can't discern from that statement that it is a blog run by people from the LABOUR movement and therefore must be, by definition, also connected implicitly with the LABOUR Party then you are a retard.

 
At 24/1/08 9:22 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should readers have is 'discern' that the standard is run by labour party activists through implication when it could have simply disclosed it in an honest manner.

Instead they have gone about it in a dishonest way in an effort to pretend that they offer an independent voice.

It's not up there with Don's emails but it does reveal the mentality of labour party activists and how far they're prepared to go and the contempt the display toward the democratic process.

 
At 24/1/08 11:07 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

Ohh, c'mon... c'mon! I'm not angry now so I won't acccuse you of retardation.

It's named after the Labour Party newspaper. There's only two groups in the "labour movement" - the Labour Party and the unions. Both are hand-in-glove with cross-membership.

Why didn't they just say "Labour Party"? I don't know - but if one of those bloggers was not a card-carrying member of the Labour Party then that could be a reason - could be. Or they thought labour with a capital L would have meant retarded people would think that it was an official blog that spoke for the Party - which I take it it is not - at least that is what the Party President confirmed yesterday on One News.

 
At 24/1/08 11:09 pm, Anonymous Legio X said...

Tim and Bo ber - you're both full of it.

Tane denied on many occasions that he and The Standard had anything to do with Labour. That was simply not true. It was a lie.

Once it was out in the open, Tane and friends then tried to limit damage, with more lies and distruths, until Mike Williams went on national TV and said that it was Labour funded and would have to be included in their election spend.

That was 2 days ago.

Today, The Standard has gone off the Labour party servers, cut adrift. Its usefulness at an end.

Transparency and openness was what the Standard preached, often by accusing their political enemies of not practicing it, they can hardly expect that they should be able to apply a lesser standard to themselves.

Oh and, apparently I'm not being abusive enough so - Get fucked the both of you.

Have you got your friends back yet Bo ber?

 
At 24/1/08 11:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"at least that is what the Party President confirmed yesterday on One News."

'confirmed" it eh? I would go so far as to say it was a forced admission under duress.

Are you both really this stupid or is this an act born out political desperation?

"Why didn't they just say "Labour Party"? I don't know"

Well maybe you should have thought about it a little more because it's fucking clear to some of us.
Lets be charitable and say that it involved misrepresentation and deceit.

Despite you pathetic attempts to spin this away (betrayed by the fact that you need to dedicate two posts to it) the 'confimation' by Williams and the moving of the server makes you look like retards and lies. Maybe your new labour friends should have included you in the contingency meeting so you were all reading from the same page.

Still, beats hanging around with those dirty hippies at indymedia gagging on vegan samosas. At least you're moving up in the world.

 
At 25/1/08 12:07 am, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

C'mon again.

"involved misrepresentation and deceit." - hardly it's right there in black and white what the site's about - it's in the bit called "about". Is that a lie? NO. Is it less than the truth or trying to conceal something? Hardly - it says the labour movement are behind it - a group of them who are calling it the old name of the Labour Party newspaper. How totally obvious is that? How many times does it need to be spelt out?

One of Farrar's posts on it had over 400 comments! It's the biggest storm in a blog cup I've ever seen - which is why the Party Pres doesn't give a fig and neither do the mainstream media. And I don't really either because I haven't read all the miles of text being wasted on the issue - what I've done is try to approach the issue as any outsider would and ask the basic questions.

It's so... nothing. It is nothing. We are having an argument about nothing. This is insane!

why I am I still writing...?
?

?

I haven't got any fondness for the Labour Party - read the papers - hell, read this blog! Now you're saying me, the guy who went to jail for dissing the Labour leader, me? who wrote a blog post about Helen Clark entitled "Sickening, hypocritical fucking bitch and a "proud Kiwi"" is now in cahoots with them!!???

Madness. Totally mad. Retardedly mad.

 
At 25/1/08 7:46 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahaha, I'm afraid Tim some of your friends on the right posting here don't have the ability to see a story from all angles, it is sad when ideology blinds them, congrats to you and bomber on the blog, much more interesting than kiwiblog.

ps - I loved the use of the word 'pathetic' by anon, honestly mate I've read your argument and Tims response, the only thing pathetic is your inability to look beyond your right wing, my god, could bomber and tim be th new reformed middle ground?

 
At 25/1/08 1:02 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bomber said "Blogs are not covered by the EFB, we live in a free country and you are free to have an opinion and 'speak' it to the world via a blog"

If you'd bothered to read the Electoral Finance Act, you'd find that Section 5(2)(g) reads:

(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).
(emphasis mine)

The Standard is run by five or six people so they are falling foul of the act. Your blog has two contributors Bomber so you might not even be exempt yourself. But please keep playing this down if it makes you happy. I look forward to Labour being hoisted by their own petard more this year as this stupid ACt trips them up more than any 'paid speakers', hollowmen or right wing interest groups.

 
At 25/1/08 3:57 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

I see Whale Oil has emailed the commission with a very well laid out complaint and it will be interesting to see what Helena Catt's call will be over the key issue seems to be: individual v. group blogs. This will apply to many of us, so it will be an important ruling.

 
At 25/1/08 9:36 pm, Anonymous Legio X said...

You guys getting paid by Alt TV to advertise them?

 
At 28/1/08 4:59 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No comment from Bomber about Andrew Moore's site getting shut down. Gee what a surprise. Hey its all cool cause it's on one of those evil right wingers getting silenced this time, nothing to see here move on...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home