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

Thursday, February 28, 2008

First couple lambast Herald for 'mischief'

First couple lambast Herald for 'mischief'
The country's First Couple yesterday hit out at the Herald, accusing the paper of showing no charity to the Labour Party and "fomenting happy mischief". In a TV interview, she said money linked to election-year ads might have been a factor in the Herald campaign against electoral finance law changes.

The Herald did not point out that the TV interview was on Alt Tv, and the full question put to Helen on Altv tv’s ‘Lets be Frank’, hosted by Oliver Driver (Tuesday 8.30pm, Sky Digital 65) was....

“Let’s talk media bias, the Electoral Finance Act has been described by the Herald as ‘Democracy under attack’, when really it should be ‘Heralds profits under attack’ as your bill will guard against plutocracy by restricting paid speech – do you see a self-interested bias in the way the Herald reports against Labour?

Let’s take the way they covered your award from the UN, a significant event for any world leader yet the Herald dedicated only one paragraph in the news in briefs and Audrey Young, their political editor, graded you lower for your first speech against John Key’s because she claims your youth policy would be reduced to “"raising the school leaving age to 18" headlines when she was the first journalist to reduce it to that headline – is the Herald simply anti-Helen Clark?”

... I can see why the Herald didn’t want to credit us, so concerned they were at the suggestion of bias the Herald put out a statement at the end of the story ... Helen Clark's claim that commercial issues were a factor in the Herald campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill was rejected emphatically by Herald editor Tim Murphy. The campaign was solely motivated by the law's restriction on free speech and its anti-democratic nature... R-i-g-h-t the restriction on advertising that will hit the Herald in the pocket HAS NOTHING to do with their 'Herald profits under attack' campaign, funny how the right can scream about the self interest of Labour but not mention their self interest isn't it?


At 29/2/08 8:17 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So why weren't Helen and Peter crying about the nasty Herald's treatment of Labour during Labour's first two terms in office Bomber?

Probably because the Herald was their biggest cheerleader then. Now that the Herald is doing what it fucking well should have been doing all along - keeping the Government of the day in check instead of brown nosing them - Helen can't handle it. Diddums.

As for Peter Davis - if he wants to stick his oar in writing letters to the Herald - Just like Cullen's wife does (so easy when you have different surnames eh?) - then Hele can now STFU about how unfair it is for everyone to be dragging her poor long-suffering husband into the medi spotlight.

P.S. I was the poster who slagged Oliver Driver off a few weeks bag and called him excreble. I take this back, he did a good job with that interview.

At 29/2/08 11:34 am, Blogger Bomber said...

your points taken, isn't there also an issue of the Herald's own self interest in this? I mean we hear all the time about Labour's self interest in the EFB, but no scrutiny of the Hearld's self interest to allow as much advertising as possible in an election year? We hear none of National's self interest in hiding their doners in secret trusts? I'm all for sticking it to the government, I went to the first protest march against this monstrosity, Jesus when you have to make 80-odd amendments to your own peice of legislation you know something is ill - but I just think we should use that same level of scrutiny to everyones interests in this.

At 29/2/08 12:02 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We hear none of National's self interest in hiding their doners in secret trusts?

If you haven't heard this in the media, then perhaps you haven't been doing to much media watching lately.

So what do you actually want from the Herald? To declare that, yes they make money from Political advertising? That this may or may not be affected by the EFB? Or do you want them to stop criticizing Labour.

They could do a big expose on National's doners but that would acheive what exactly? Everyone knows they have anonymous doners, we heard all about that last election, Labour could have done something about this with the EFB but they didn't want to risk exposing their own anonymous doners so they blew their chance. It isn't about National, as much as you want it to be, it's about Labour getting stung by their own fuck ups.

At 29/2/08 2:02 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Hey I marched in the first protest against the EFB, I'm well aware of how bad this was orginally, as to what I expect from the Herald - very little my friend, what I do expect is for people to see how much self interest the Herald's position actually is and that jumping up and down at Labour only misses out on everyone elses self interest in this.

At 1/3/08 4:27 pm, Blogger dave said...

The NZH is free to run its own front page campaigns against Labour for the whole year.
But it should really by campaigning against the financial parasite and bloody good Irish winger who owns the NZH and his 'G-Whiz' group to solve the global credit crunch. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10495398&pnum=0

G-Whiz means coordinating all the privately owned or controlled central banks to bale out the speculator parasites. That used to be called socialism for the rich.
So let's see a campaign for freedom of speech and total transparency to expose the fat cats of Key's ilk who have made their billions screwing the rest of us.


Post a Comment

<< Home