From 12 Questions: Bruce Sheppard by Sarah Stuart in the NZ Herald today:
6. Who taught you cynicism?
Better question would be what, and that is simple – time and experience. Not much is what it seems, and the world has been spun to hopelessly complex levels for what appear to be very limited useful outcomes. By being sceptical I aim to peel away the nonsense of issues and look for the beauty within. Sometimes the inner evil is so great that I have to shout loudly, using colourful language or costumes. In a world of mass media it is easy to be drowned out.
‘Many saw evil. They dared to stop it.’
And sometimes people speak up about wrong as they see it — to their own detriment, and damage in other parts of their lives.
Remember: if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts.
Media3
On a related note, DO WATCH Russell Brown’s Media3 (available on demand here) for a strong interview which I was lucky enough to watch being taped with journalists/authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson. They discuss Bradley Manning, Wikileaks and whistle blowers here and abroad. Hager’s view of Manning’s contribution to history is worth absorbing. I think he’s right.
Also discussed is how government officials, including NZ Prime Minister John Key, can be seen to have engaged in efforts to discredit inconvenient truth-tellers (I’ve recorded Mr Key’s past efforts to, as I see it, smear Hager, who wrote blockbuster The Hollow Men and, separately, the Tea Pot Tapes cameraman). Jon Stephenson talks, carefully, about his recent legal moves to push back against some of that and details disturbing threats he’s personally received.
The same Media3 episode deploys Russell Brown’s summary of The National Business Review‘s ‘sincere apology to Phil Kitchin and The Dominion Post‘ interlude, discussed here in Why has @TheNBR been so #slippery about their apology to Phil Kitchin and @DomPost?
– P
Your drawing a long long bow claiming the Teapot tapes incident as whistle blowing. More like invasion of privacy.
Fair point if that was what I was doing.
But really, I am pointing to Mr Key’s (in my view) demonstrated use of smear tactics in response to inconvenient truth: to issue guy-next-door statements as Prime Minister which seek to discredit the bearer of ‘bad’ news.
Mr Key’s deployment of an apparently untrue story about Jon Stephenson texting him in the early hours of the morning (“Never happened” Stephenson told me when I asked him on Tuesday night) was risible. Or it would be if what it revealed about our “non-politician” PM wasn’t so serious.
Follow that with his story about Standard and Poor’s [allegedly, oops maybe not] telling economists a change of government would lead to a credit downgrade and are we starting to see a pattern?
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “Once is unfortunate, twice is careless, three times is …”
– P
I realize every article you write is a Pro Labour anti National theme. but gezz I thought this about silencing the source in general not Labour Puff piece.
I think we both agree Politics is full of Slime and ingenuous actions.
But have you actually thought that maybe Key and National are actually doing what the majority of people in this country want and or need or that the alternative they don’t trust or have trust in. You know the same people 2 to 1 who voted for them.
But no the minority (like you and other cult following shills here) stand there in dumb founded amazement.
I certainly hope (and expect) Mr Key’s ego is less fragile than your eagerly defensive crouch implies.
It’s simplistic and unreasonable of you to frame any criticism of the prime minister’s heavy-handed top spin in terms of the critic being a “pro Labour shill”.
Craig/Brad/whoever, I’ve told you before I’m not in Labour’s camp. My history strongly suggests I’m a swing voter. You seem to me to be partisan … to the point of a sectarian … which is a shame because it reduces your utility in an argument.
Best wishes, – P
On the contrary in the time I have found this blog you have never criticized Labour or positively critiqued the Government or anyone who leans their way.
Apart from small print comments which you then back stab later in the post. But its like 99.5% a Prom Labour Blog.
This heavily weighted black and white evidence here on this site does not reduce my arguments ‘as you put it.’
It Nullifies yours just like it nullifies Cameron Slater’s you both are shills for opposing teams and cannot be taken seriously to look at and comment things in a balanced manner. Period.
Have you added another nom de plume?
Craig/Brad/Greg, I’ve said before that I think you hallucinate about my ‘motivations’ and place me in a partisan box based on part of my commentary which displeases you.
We’ve discussed before the futility of that:
http://www.thepaepae.com/declaring-where-youre-coming-from/24628/
Please read it (again?) I would value your comments, truly.
On the one-sided charge: You do realize don’t you C/B/G that Labour hasn’t been the gummint in the life of this blog?
Merely in terms of whose actions affect the country, clearly people of my background will pay more attention to those in power. I don’t apologise for that, nor see a problem with it.
Call me whatever you like, but I just don’t have an interest in Opposition leadership scandals/squabbles/dramas nor, really, much in policy proposals unless they’re likely to happen … I did respond to Labour’s suggested Capital Gains Tax in July ’11: http://www.thepaepae.com/capital-gains-tax-politics-is-the-art-of-polarization/17666/ … but that’s more in terms of the battle for perceptions in context of Labour’s desperate, against-the-odds-of-history effort to turf John Key’s government out after a single term.
Key’s National Party deserved another term in my view, (which I’m sure I’ve told you before … ah yes:
http://www.thepaepae.com/nationals-desperados-get-perfervid-about-peters/20513/comment-page-1/#comment-12363).
Anyway, you’ll form your own view, as you are completely free to do.
– P
Hey Craig, apropos our discussion, I saw this line in the NZ Herald this morning…
See: Key under fire over Solid Energy claims NZ Herald 15/3/13
To refresh our memory (ha) here’s Mr Key’s Standard and Poor’s explanation …
John Key explains his Standard & Poor’s comments Oct 2011 from The Paepae on Vimeo.
Love your Bruce Sheppard quote. I missed it at the time.
Whoa … look at this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10871442
Words do matter.
there was never any expectation the Crown would bear the cost of the required investment and a figure of $1 billion
Stating there was never an expectation does not mean they did not want the Crown to bear part of the cost or not even tabled the idea.
The statement implies they just did not expect the Crown to bear the cost. And they didn’t
Big difference.
Almost like me stating I have no expectation you till start to look at things from a non comprised stand point.
But at the same time I would like you too.
If they came to Key and stated they want to raise funds Privately why would they oppose this unless if things turned pair shaped the odds were Government still would be asked for assistance.
Keep the death by a million paper cuts approach on trivial hair splitting theory’s Peter.
[…] had cause today to remember may earlier response to the NZ Labour Party annoucning an intention to introduce […]