Tag Archives: media

Racist rich person: “I’m not racist”

Racist star of the joke reality show Real Housewives of Auckland Julia Stone is demanding an apology from the Race Relations Commissioner after Dame Susan Devoy called her a racist last week following her use of a racist term to describe a fellow cast member during a show.

The Human Rights Commission confirmed it has received a letter from Ms. Stone’s racist lawyers claiming her racist use of the racist term wasn’t racist.

The incident, featured on a recent episode of the programme showing Ms. Stone using a racist term in a racist and derogatory way, garnered international attention with various media organisation around the world reporting Ms. Stone’s racist language.

After being confirmed as hugely racist, Ms Stone went on the offensive saying the racist term she used wasn’t “that racist” because she used it all the time and because she wasn’t racist, the phrase wasn’t racist.

Ms. Stone confirmed she has called in the lawyers who will be looking to sue the Human Rights Commission for defamation for calling the racist language she used racist.

Ms. Stone’s public relations consultant Deborah Pead has pointed out, “she is concerned that her character has been vilified in a sweeping, snap judgement, based on a reality TV show. It’s important to remember if the television cameras hadn’t been there, Ms. Stone could have been casually racist as she normally is and nothing would have happened because she wouldn’t have been filmed using the racist language she loves to use.”

Clarification from media man

Good evening.

There were a few interestingly fruitful statements of anguish following my explanation yesterday regarding our reporting on David Cunliffe’s recent holiday.

As I said yesterday, the fact that John Key was on holiday at the same time, and for much longer, and in a far warmer and far further away place has absolutely nothing to do with our reporting into the 2-day break of Mr Cunliffe.

It’s also important to point out a few things.

Firstly, when the Labour Party released their comprehensive and thoroughly well thought out education policy at their congress last week, people were still speaking about Mr Cunliffe apologising for being a man. We know this because several of those people have very well-read blog sites. Those sites were talking about it so that must mean than everybody was. Nowhere on those blog sites was reference made to Labour’s education policy. If there was, it was all very, very negative.

Secondly, I don’t feel the need I have to defend myself. We in the media have a great deal of responsibility in reporting the news as it happens. The fact that Mr Cunliffe’s important policy news is nowhere near as important as we in the media trying to dismantle his arguments in case people decide they actually hate John Key and want to start voting Labour or, god forbid, the Greens.

Thirdly, I have no other points to make. I feel my previous points succinctly sum up my position and the positions held my many of the people who own me.

Good evening.

Media man defends himself

Hello there.

I work for a very well-known national daily paper. I’ve been asked, by some of my fellow Press Council members, to respond to some of the criticism being levelled at us from some of the left-wing blogs.

There has been some voicing of the opinion that we are biased against David Cunliffe after publishing criticism from an un-named “Labour insider” who has expressed some f***ing concern at David’s brief holiday in Qu***stown.

I would like to categorically state for the record right here and now that we in the mainstream media are in no way biased against the leader of the opposition.

Yes we often publish stories that are less than flattering to Mr Cunliffe. And yes it’s true that after the release of each political poll we go out of our way to thoroughly question all those Labour Party members of parliament who are low on the party list or standing in a marginal seat. And yes we over-report National’s polling results by discounting the 10-20% of voters who say they are undecided, yet fail to make clear in our reporting that National’s result is actually a percentage of decided voters and not all voters. And yes we could have easily got stuck into John Key for heading off on holiday to Hawaii at exactly the same time as David Cunliffe. And yes we got Key’s comment on the Labour MP after he arrived back in the country as if he is the “go-to” political pundit when dealing with issues from the opposition.

But as I said at the start, that in no way makes us biased. So you can clearly see that we have covered all the bases.

Thank you for listening.

Who Should You Trust?

The first Prime Minister I can remember is Bill Rowling. I was around five years old when he came to power. I don’t remember much about him. I put this down to the fact that he took over after Norm Kirk passed away and was then removed from office by questionable campaigning from the late Sir Robert Muldoon who, among other things, likened Rowling and his Labour Party to animated Russian dancers. Screen shot 2013-07-17 at 12.08.54 PM

Rowling and Labour lost and the new superannuation fund set up by that government was pillaged and spent on massive projects designed to get oil out of the ground.

After that election the country faced 9 years under the regime of a man who literally ran everything. He was Prime Minister and Finance Minister so the buck stopped with him. Although it didn’t really stop as his spending prowess has been well documented as has his late night juiced-up announcement of the election that brought the David Lange Labour government to power.

Following that Labour government the country faced another National government hell-bent on the destruction of many facets of Kiwi society that had been built up over the previous three or four generations.

Free healthcare and free education were seen as the cornerstones of a developed nation. It was believed that a healthy, well-educated nation was a production nation. That 1990s National government – filled with cabinet ministers who had made their success thanks to the very subsidies (educational / farming) they were removing – cut benefits and pensions at a time featuring much higher rates of inflation than we have now.

It’s fine not having much money, just as long as the price of the food, power and rent you are paying doesn’t increase at a faster rate than the income you receive. Ruth Richardson decided at a time when inflation was 5% it would be a good idea to cut benefits. Not only was their more to pay, you had less to pay for it with.

Fast forward twenty or so years and we have a similar government trying to sell us similar policies – only this time the reforms include mandatory drug testing for job seekers and requiring parents receiving benefits to enroll their children in early childhood education and appropriate healthcare facilities. Admittedly this may fly in the face of my earlier “healthy, educated country” comment, but read on for clarification.

You have to ask yourself this: if this policy is so amazing, why are they not extending it out to ALL parents? They would never be able to because there are too many votes to be lost. At the moment this policy is about dividing the poor getting government money from the poor who are working for their money.

The only problem is that pretty much everybody gets Working for Families these days. That’s government money. Drug tests and parental tests for all!!

There was an incredibly important survey released in the United Kingdom this week. The article in the Independent newspaper was titled, “British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows.” It goes on to document the survey results showing the British public had a warped perception of a range of aspects to their society.

The by-line of the article is this:

Research shows public opinion often deviates from facts on key social issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The article is well worth a read because many of the points made within can be easily transposed to the New Zealand situation. I’m sure we (our society) believe that benefit fraud is a multi-million dollar a year enterprise and that all beneficiaries exist to fleece the taxpayer. In actual fact benefit fraud was around $23 million last year – a record according to the New Zealand Herald which indicates it has previously been lower. Although this report from TV3 indicates welfare fraud could be as high as $39 million. It also mentions the fact that tax fraud could be anywhere between $1 and $6 billion dollars and we all know what this government thinks about tax evasion since many of the current cabinet protect their assets with family trusts.

Why is this? Why is it that the perception people have of these aspects of society is so far removed from what is actually happening?

There are two main reasons. Politicians and the main-stream media. Politicians spend their public lives manipulating public opinion through the main-stream media who appear to show little motivation to question or seriously delve into the claims made. When was the last time you saw John Key really questioned about what he was saying? admittedly it is a hard thing to do when the nightly news is all about soundbites and misformation.

We live in a country that has had, for many decades, one of the highest voter turn-out rates in the western world. In the past five decades the turnout has fallen from above 90% to below 70% at the last election. In the same period membership levels for political parties has also plummeted – from just under 300,000 in 1954 to a shade over 50,000 now.

It is all connected. People are not motivated to take part in our democracy because our political masters are seen as self-serving manipulators of the truth. They are prone to the exaggeration of facts or outright lies depending on the situation, the journalist or the audience. People are not motivated to join political parties because they don’t want to belong to an organisation that bases its existence on the manipulation of others. People don’t believe politicians because they know that they say one thing and mean another (see my blog from the weekend).

So when a politicians tells you that 20% of New Zealand children are leaving school unable to read and write, or in prison or similar such utterances suggesting things are seriously wrong with our education system, how much of that is truth and how much of it is exaggerated bullshit made up by former journalists and media comment writers hired by the politicians to gather as many votes as possible?

Politicians do not exist in the real world. They exist in their own little protective cocoon. Protected by their minders, their party machine and the unquestioning main-stream media.

Trust them and what they say about the education of your children AT YOUR PERIL.

Mr B.

Sources

Inflation Rates Across the Decades – Reserve Bank of New Zealand

The Mother of all Budgets – Te Ara On-line Encyclopedia

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows – The Independent, Tuesday July 9, 2013

Voter Turnout 1928 – 2011 – Te Ara On-line Encyclopedia

Party membership, 1954–2008 – Te Ara On-line Encyclopedia

Benefit fraud tops $23m in record year – New Zealand Herald, Monday Feb 25, 2013

Courts tougher on benefit fraud than tax dodging – 3 News, Oct 21, 2012

How super-rich Kiwis dodge tax – New Zealand Herald, Jun 1, 2013

100 Days…

So Obama’s been in for 100 days. They’re all going on about it….

What’s he achieved so far? Well I think his crowning achievement is not moves halting US torture of detainees, time-line of withdrawal from Iraq, or his decisive moves to halt world economic collapse.

His greatest accomplishment to date is the way he has totally freaked out the right wing lunatic fringe of the US. Of course, when I use the word ‘fringe’ here it implies that there aren’t very many of them. In actual fact there is a vast swath of this fringe that regularly drapes itself over all aspects of the United States. So much so that a brother such as Obama, and recently our southern white brother Clinton, have to turn up to church of a weekend to keep up appearances. I have do doubt that they believe, but having to be pictured heading off to the great building with the family rather than just kicking back, reading the papers and having a latte like the rest of us must be more than just a little bit annoying.

The fact that this right wing lunatic fringe uses religion and Fox News as a front to spout all sorts of ridiculous atrocities makes it even more frightening. Think about the sorts of things that these types talk about inside and outside the electoral process: against same sex marriages, for guns, against abortion, ardent unfettered patriotism. All these things can be quite scary to a little New Zealand free liberal such as myself…

The rallying call of the right recently has been the quaking and shaking. I suppose it happened accidentally before the election when they mistook Barack for some kind of Muslim because of the chocolaty nature of his hue and the fact that his last name sounds a tiny, little bit like the first name of some mystery beardo who nobody’s seen for a decade. Anyhoo, the conservative right are now terrified of Obama. Terrified to the point that they have begun a group called the ‘teabaggers’ (see recent blog) whose main objective is not testicular in nature, but to reduce their federal tax burden. Terrified to the point that their main media outlet fails to fully research a moniker before implementing its blanket usage. Terrified to the point that they don’t actually know what to do other than to complain and moan that, “he’s doing it all wrong.”

Ahhhh… the religious right… That vast group of conservative idiots whose main goal in life is to live by the code of the bible while at the same time to live by the code of the self. Their call for individual rights above all others is only tempered by the doomed hypocrisy of telling other people how to live their lives.

Here is just a short list of contradictory ideologies that make up the founding platforms of these selfish twats (twat: noun a man who is a stupid, incompetent fool. syn dickhead, idiot). They are pro-life with their blinding hatred of a woman’s right to choose, yet at the same time they will willingly exercise their constitutional right to kill people they find on their property – even if that people is a friend and/or relative. They like to send people to prison for life or to death row (see previous pro-life point), yet they are unwilling to pay the necessary level of tax required to support the cost of housing those prisoners, or indeed rehabilitating them to the point where they may once again contribute to society. Conservatives will espouse individuals rights over the rights of the collective (i.e. society), yet are quite willing to tell everyone else what to do when it comes to things like those mentioned in this paragraph.

The great thing about conservatives and their hypocrisy is how far they fall. With a liberal type you generally know what they’re about. I believe in this, I did that at university but didn’t inhale etc. Religious conservatives have to keep up appearances. If you need to appear moral in character and then you start fiddling the books of your company/church, or have sex with prostitutes, then you’re in much bigger trouble when you get caught compared to say someone like Clinton who got some, allegedly, in the oval office with a young intern. Even though he denied fully any accusations, when he ultimately did fess up, nothing much happened because everyone knew he was a bit of a loose cannon and quite a lovable one at that. The Republicans couldn’t even impeach him.

Of course, being a blogger, I am prone to gross generalisations without any foundation. Check this book out (thanks to Google books). I particularly love the front cover – much fire and brimstone. Not all conservatives or religious people are going to be the selfish, pro-life, pro-death, money-grubbing, gun toting nazis that get all the media coverage (Dick Cheney). A vast majority of the religious right go to church because they love Jesus and God and their ideas. It’s just that they expect everyone to be like them, and if, “we’re not with them, we’re against them.”

Totally free and independent individual rights don’t necessarily work. Some regulatory checks and balances are needed. If these were in place then the US banking system would not be owned by Obama now.

Can’t we all be good without being God?

Boon x