- #1677492lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 1917lilith7 April 26, 2018 at 11:38 am
And that lilith7 was exactly what was happening during the time of the previous Government. I was accused of being an ACT supporter because I continually defended the Government because I believed the “general political discourse has been critical out of all proportion“. Basically the only difference now is those who criticised National and now defending the Coalition and those who defended National are now criticising the Coalition. It is easier to condemn a Government that it is to defend it. Partly because every Government, and the current Government is no exception, tend to make stupid decisions in the eyes of a proportion of the population. This is why it is important to focus on the decision and not on the person.
Not entirely,Halycon. During the previous govt,there was no deliberately malicious & continuing campaign to discredit Bronagh Key or Mary English simply due to their being the PM’s partner,as we’re seeing happen now.
Though I think on both sides there will always be those who can see nothing good in the opposing party,regardless of what they’re doing & nothing bad in their party of choice,whatever they do.#1677506arandar April 26, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Not to forget, these attacks are not coming from random bloggers.
(I do not believe The Standard, a collection of unpaid, usually left aligned posters plus commenters from across the political spectrum, and We’ll All Be F…ed, usually one right/centre right man’s posts and usually commenters from similar places on the spectrum, can actually be compared apples for apples but I know it’s convenient for some here to do so.)
The attacks on our PM and her partner that worry me are from columnists, paid, contracted or employed, in our MSM. That is unconscionable and it’s constant. It was happening when the last Labour govt was in and it’s happening now.
It did not happen to John Key and Bronagh, nor to Bill English and Mary.
Random bloggers yes and bad cess to the lot of them.
MSM no, and bad cess to them too – there are too damn many opinion pieces and too few reports and thoughtful, factual articles these days.
We should not forget Dirty Politics and how that was orchestrated from the 9th floor of the Beehive and that many of the same operators are still around and still spreading their muck and misinformation.
One more thing. If some of the current crop of rumours sown in the muck are true, why are not our so-called journalists in the MSM not investigating and bringing the truth to the public?
Arandar#1677547halcyon April 26, 2018 at 3:49 pm
I would suggest that part of the problem is that Clark Gayford had public exposure prior to Ardern becoming PM. He has maintained that presence since then and has had considerably more media coverage that either Mrs Key or Mrs English had. The effect of the coverage has resulted in Gayford becoming more of a household name. I have been provided with more information about him than I was with either of the other two First Ladies. ( Ok, so I don’t read Woman’s Weekly).
In addition to Gayford’s exposure is the amount of media attention to Ardern. She has been treated more as a celebrity than a politician. I could be wrong but I do not remember any previous PM receiving as much coverage about personal issues as she has.
Possibly once the media shift their focus from ‘Celebrity’ to ‘Policy’ mode the amount of negative comment may cease. I hope so, I am tired of both and would like to see more analysis of policy decisions as the Government moves to implement them.
Already disturbed, approach with caution.#1677573arandar April 26, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Oh crikey, John Key didn’t get the ‘celebrity’ treatment?
He did, Halcyon. The women’s mags were full of him. You’re forgiven for not reading them. Nor do I.
But the MSM? Bare chest shots in home swimming pool. Changing room shots with All Blacks. BBQ with Prince William. Planking with Max. Mincing in new sports gear. Golfing with Obama. Big Gay Out.
Commercial radio – beyond a joke! Remember the ‘don’t bend over to pick up the soap in prison’ joke? I do. Unfortunately!
And how do you think we got to know he doesn’t shave his pubes, does/did pee in the shower and wont tell us whether he masturbates? Because Bronagh wouldn’t like it! He told us that stuff.
The list is endless.
Arandar#1677590halcyon April 26, 2018 at 5:44 pm
That is true arandar, but the coverage of Key was over nine years. The current of Ardern is over nine months. However, by the end of the year the novelty of a new PM will have worn off and it will be back to business as normal.
My main point is that Gayford has a larger media profile than Mrs Key had. And that is contributing to the backlash he is experiencing. But likewise, he will grow into his role and learn to remain close but not so visible as time goes by.
Already disturbed, approach with caution.#1677616arandar April 26, 2018 at 8:14 pm
The media infatuation with John Key never wore off.
We never had much in the way of investigative MSM journalism into his government and its policies, actions or inactions.
We had the left banging on for years about a housing crisis in Auckland. The Key govts said no crisis. The MSM said oh well that’s alright then. Ditto Auckland transport. Ditto Mental Health. Ditto Christchurch rebuild. Ditto Pike River. Ditto Teina Pora. Ditto the aging population. Ditto Social Welfare. Ditto immigration.
Im not slagging off the Key govt. they only did what they always do. No surprises there then.
What has surprised me was the compliance of the media. And the vitriol which far too many of them, Hosking, Soper, du Plessis, Hill-Cone, Garner, Hooton, Gower, et al, have immediately brought to bear on The PM, her partner, her party, and their policies.
Why, given they’ve had six whole months, has this new govt not solved all the problems the Nats ignored and denied for 9 years, the MSM, the RW bloggers and their supporters scream.
Tonight, Paula Benefit told us single parents should be sanctioned for not being willing to work, preferring life of the benefit. This from the woman who also told us she tried to work and raise her young daughter but it was too hard, she was exhausted, so she went back on the DPB. Go figure. That’s hypocrisy in my book. Is she being called out by the MSM for it’s? Not so far.
Arandar#1677654lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 1917lilith7 April 27, 2018 at 12:49 pm
The other thing I’ve noticed is that,whenever I draw attention to this deliberate campaign of malicious rumours,the comments from opposition supporters are invariably that:
1) Its not organised,&
2) He’s in the public eye so more or less fair game.
Blatant B.S. imo,this is indeed a very highly organised campaign to discredit the PM’s partner & also the PM through their association. And I don’t think we need look too far to find just who it is,who so enjoys destroying people,do we. Imo,this is the very same grubby gang which was responsible for dirty politics. These are not nice,or reasonable,people & democracy doesn’t interest them.
“Whatever the wider implications, the book has had a profound effect on me, personally. Something that doesn’t come across in the news coverage about Dirty Politics, and Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, Jordan Williams, Simon Lusk et al is just how fucking awful these people are. They spend their lives trying to poison and contaminate our politics. They enjoy seeing people suffer. They get excited by the idea of breaking up the marriages of their political enemies and ruining their lives.
So, is the worst moment in the book when Simon Lusk is discussing with Cameron Slater how they want to use some alleged texts sent by Rodney Hide to “some girl” to pressure Hide to resign as ACT leader:
[Tell Hide we have the texts] and will leak them if he doesn’t resign by friday, and how will the new mrs hide react to that. [This is] straight out of my personal playbook, upset the missus, cause strife at home. (p. 69)
Or is it when this same Simon Lusk states:
I’m just motivated to cut throats. Unfortunately the biggest buzz I get is when I wreck someone, only done it three times, but I was on a massive high. (p. 65-6)#1677684halcyon April 27, 2018 at 4:14 pm
I agree that “He’s in the public eye so more or less fair game” is no excuse lilith7. However, when a person (he or she) draws attention to themselves by their behaviour, it can be expected that others will comment about the behaviour.
I placed a quote on the “Free speech? Hate speech?” thread by Mike Hoskings. I don’t normally agree with Hoskings but on this occasion he is correct, He, by virtue (sorry for the choice of word) of his media role, is often in the public focus. He said
“If I had something to say every time a petition was started, a column was written, a barb was tossed or Twitter lit up … I’d have died of exhaustion years ago.”
“You pick your fights in life, I pick mine based on what’s important to me, and what’s important to me is professionalism and being above the fray. What someone I’ve never met may think of me is not important.”
Wise advice. Those who retaliate to comments made about them usually end up drawing more attention to the incident. I like the way the Minister of Health firmly stated he did not intend to discuss the Middlemore incident any further. Basically he has closed down the matter. While some opponents will try to continue the debate the matter is dead in the water. And this is what Key did. Remember, he was known as Teflon John.
Already disturbed, approach with caution.
#1677724dr-whoMemberMember since: April 12, 2017
- This reply was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by halcyon. Reason: add quote
Replies: 136dr-who April 27, 2018 at 5:29 pm
I think Coleman simply used his right to not incriminate himself.
Abolutley nothing likeable about his handling of the Middlemore nor of the Health portfolio.#1677727halcyon April 27, 2018 at 5:42 pm
Actually Dr-Who, Coleman is not the Minister of Health. He is the ex-Minister of Health. I was referring to the current incumbent.
Actually the whole truth about the debacle has not come out. And no good purpose would be served by re-litigating the matter, it will only result in greater confusion. For every piece of evidence supporting Clark’s story there is an equal and valid piece of evidence supporting Coleman’s. What will be of importance now is how the current Government handles the matter going forward.
Already disturbed, approach with caution.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.