Sources are important (continued)

I don’t discuss Tucker Carlson much. There’s a good reason for that. I don’t respect what he does. He’s never recovered from the discrediting he received at Jon Stewart’s hands on Crossfire, and his bitterness and petulant readiness to try to label Stewart a ‘partisan hack’ at any slender opportunity is laughable.

Where I do acknowledge Tucker’s expertise is in the area of converting right wing angst about the ‘liberal media’ into a meal ticket. Tucker has managed to attract funding for what was pitched as a right wing answer to the influential left wing news site Hufflington Post — the Daily Caller which histrionically ‘goes after’ left wing media figures exposing them as having opinions (gasp) as if that was akin to exposing a child pornography ring involving policemen, politicians and priests (… oh, wait.)

At present, election year in the US, Tucker and his online mag are trying to discredit Media Matters for America, unquestionably a thorn in the side of the liars and hyperbolists (new word!) of all shades who seek to smear their opponents by falsehoods, deliberate misinterpretations and exaggerations (think Sarah Palin’s ‘death panels’ and Rush Limburgh etc)

Sadly for Tucker (although he’ll gain stature in the view of his one-eyed funders) he’s doing a crap job of it. I read his first breathless vacuum and noted the lack of attribution to sources, calling it an

Obvious smear campaign filled with unnamed ‘sources’, alleged but not produced ‘memos’ and ominous hyperbole. Shabby.

The turgid innuendo about mental illness, allegedly on and off meds, looked like Carlson-esque character assassination and, not providing sources, as I have often said before (see Linking to sources — why it’s vital for credibility (Case study: property spruiker Sean Wood for example) is a dead giveaway for making sh*t up.

The Poynter institute for journalism ran an article by Andrew Beaujon which touches on this lack of sources, actually quantifying Tucker’s (lack of) demonstrated basis for his vitriol …

The Daily Caller’s series of attempted takedowns about Media Matters for America continues with a Tucker Carlson-bylined piece, published late Monday night, that alleges Media Matters considered attending the same events as Fox News personalities … paying for their own tickets if necessary. At least this story has a solid document behind it; the DC’s first story quoted, in order: “a former coworker,” “one employee,” “a former Media Matters employee,” “one staffer,” “one former staffer,” “one source,” “a Media Matters source,” “another source with firsthand knowledge,” “one former staffer,” ”the former employee,” “a Media Matters source,” “a source,” “a fellow attendee,” “this person,” “a coworker,” “Friends,” “Sources back at the Media Matters offices,” “one source with knowledge of what happened next,” “someone who witnessed it,” “One staffer,” “David Saldana, the former deputy editorial director at Media Matters,” and “one employee.”

Before you get too excited about the ‘solid document’ behind Tucker’s second er, article, see this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/02/daily-caller-publishes-yearold-mmfa-memo-114321.html

Anyway, we could talk until the cows come home about partisan hackery, but my respect as a journalist will always go to those who provide concrete sources for their allegations/exposés etc rather than just try to demean and smear their opponents with name-calling and innuendo or weak suggestions that because someone doesn’t agree with them, they must be kinda insane.

– P

PS Of course Media Matters for America is just as much in the ‘raise funds from like-minded people’, ‘build an empire’ and ‘influence the public discourse’ game as Tucker Carlson and his henchmen teammates are. The political game, especially in America, is so choked with money and influence it attracts people who want … money and influence. Hello?

UPDATE: Doh! Why is Tucker running an “‘Inside Media Matters’ investigative series” now? Gee could it be this:

The Fox Effect How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine

Coming out next week ... so, for the faithful, start discrediting Brock/Media Matters now. D'ya think?

 

What we look for

I popped over and read a blog I used to visit a while ago but stopped when the relentlessness of its negativity toward anything remotely liberal (left wing politics, Maori issues, unions, climate change, Occupy movement, etc) became too rich and hysterical.

Wow. My tolerance for the bigotry that this guy pushes had really dropped away. Yuk.

I guess it’s a good example of this:

Source: piccsy.com via Peter on Pinterest

.

Update: fixed the typos. Doh!

– P

This still makes me chuckle

Spotted at a cafe in Howick.

Whitney Houston RIP

20120212-160330.jpgSad to hear today that Whitney Houston has died.

What a magnificent gifted voice. RIP.

-P

US troops building bridges with Nazi symbolism …

I spotted this on the Mother Jones news website today, and words fail me.

Oh, gee. (Mother Jones - click to read)

Why is this making news now? Several Marines who were concerned about the photos contacted Mikey Weinstein (no relation), president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit that watchdogs religious intolerance in the armed services. Their behavior, Weinstein told me, “eviscerates good order, morale, and discipline,” in addition to angering non-Americans and alienating survivors of the Nazis’ atrocities. He published the photos on the foundation’s website and sent a letter to Gen. John Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, demanding punishment for the Marines involved. “That flag symbolizes the vile ideology of Hitlerian fascism and sends a menacing signal to religious minorities within the United States armed forces,” Weinstein said.

Wow.

– P

Ellen DeGeneres and ‘traditional values’. Nice.

Ellen: "My haters are my motivators!" Nice.

Watch this. It’s brilliant. From Ellen DeGeneres, facing a boycott threat against JC Penney from people offended she’s gay …

“I usually don’t talk about stuff like this on my show, but I really want to thank everyone who is supporting me. … Here are the values I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you’d want to be treated and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for.”

Watch the video below (requires Flash).

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Way to go!

– P

Full of sound and fury

Some who fancy themselves as ‘political players’ put me in mind of this from Macbeth:

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Radio station referred to police over pre-election ‘Prime Minister’s hour’

Not a great look for RadioLIVE just as their excellent TV spots boosting their ‘breaking news’ brand get under way. Ouch. Breaching the Broadcasting Act.

I preferred the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s description of John Key’s (let’s-face-it:-pretty-entertaining-but-maybe-for-the-wrong-reasons) ‘politics free’ radio show as ‘light flim-flam and frivolity‘.

No doubt the legal advice RadioLIVE sought prior to the broadcast will give them a sense of assurance that this will all work out well for them. We’ll see. Radio NZ reports that

…Radio Live was warned against airing the show, but it chose to test the boundaries without offering the same opportunity to other political leaders.

The intersection between news and talkback radio (‘newstalk’) is fraught with tricky ‘programming’ compromises like this, in my experience.

It should be no reflection on the station’s reporters and newsroom staff  what programmes do … but it’s sometimes a hard distinction to make since they share the same ‘brand’. That, and the equally-hard-to-shake awareness that RadioLIVE has fair dripped with former or current National Party MPs or candidates, with a few notable exceptions, over the years.

As former drive time host – now National MP – Maggie Barry, said: ‘Being opinionated is contagious on this station, isn’t it?’

I wish them well.

– P

NOT taking their own ‘advice’ … for better outcomes

Last year I read an article called How Doctors Die which I highly recommend you also read.

In a nutshell, and as a generalization, Ken Murray MD finds that doctors faced with their own terminal disease seek none of the high level medical interventions they might carry out or recommend to their patients, but rather go for palliative care … and instructions like ‘Do not to resuscitate’ …

… doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.
Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen—that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right). …

Today I read in What Do Divorce Lawyers Do In Their Own Divorces? (also worth a read) that divorce lawyers in that situation (it must happen all the time) avoid fighting and try to negotiate!

… They try to stay out of court. Despite their familiarity with the system, and despite any perceived advantage they are believed to have, they do everything they can to settle their case before it reaches the court system.
Divorce insiders try to resist the inclination to fight. They think going to court is a losing proposition. It wastes energy, time, and money and is a last resort; it is something they will consider only when there is no other choice.

Well! What to think about anybody’s ‘advice’?

– P

PS As far as I know I’m not ill or getting divorced. (In case you wondered.)

Study: Right-wingers are dumber. Preposterous!

From the RadioLIVE website:

A paper, published in Psychological Science, claims that people with ring-wing views tend to be less intelligent than those on the left. It claims that people of lower-intelligence tend towards right-wing views as they make them feel ‘safe’.
…. Children on the study were assessed for innate intelligence aged 10 or 11, then assessed politically at the age of 33.
… It found that people with a low childhood intelligence gravitated towards racist and anti-gay views as they grew up.

Here’s a link to the original ‘Daily Mail’ story for more detail. (If you care.) It includes this …

Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. …
The authors claim that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.
… ‘Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,’ says the paper.
‘In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.’

Somebody’s having a laugh. But what if it’s true?

– P

Of goose and ganders. ACT on Campus referred to police for breaching the law

I was idly checking the 2011 election results on the Electorial Commission’s website tonight, to doublecheck my basis for recently referring to fringe political party ACT as the one-point-one percenters … they got 1.07% of the vote … and look:

Referral to the Police 2 February 2012

The Electoral Commission has referred the following matter to the Police:

ACT on Campus ‘Not your typical party’ flyer, baseball cap and t-shirt.

It is the Electoral Commission’s view that the publication of the ACT on Campus flyer, baseball cap and t-shirts constitutes a breach of sections 204F and 204H of the Electoral Act 1993 because the items are election advertisements that did not contain a valid promoter statement and were not authorised in writing by the ACT party secretary.

As this matter is now with the Police, the Electoral Commission will not be commenting further.

How strange (er, not!) that the fixated right wing attack bloggers who so studiously and vociferously whack their perceived enemies on the ‘left’ for such misdemeanors and infractions have been … silent. Unless I missed something other than Homepaddock‘s mention discovered later. (That’s not to say I classify him that way!)

Those others just probably just missed the news, huh?

– P

Background of the Waitangi Tribunal

Establishment of the Tribunal
There is a long history in New Zealand of Māori protest over instances where the Treaty of Waitangi was not observed. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975 at a time when protests about unresolved Treaty grievances were growing and, in some instances, taking place outside the law. By establishing the Tribunal, Parliament provided a legal process by which Māori Treaty claims could be investigated. The Waitangi Tribunal inquiry process contributes to the resolution of Treaty claims and, in that way, to the reconciliation of outstanding issues between Māori and Pākehā.

The Tribunal’s Governing Legislation
The Waitangi Tribunal was established by an Act of Parliament, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. While that Act is the main statute governing the Tribunal, there are other statutes that regulate or affect how it works, including the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988, and the various statutes that give effect to Treaty claim settlements. Continue reading →

Nelson Mandela on reconciliation

20120206-121925.jpg

One of my very generous sisters-in-law gave me a volume of Nelson Mandela quotations for Christmas. It’s astonishing how much wisdom about the big issues of life he expressed over the years — and with such eloquence and elegance of thought.

Thinking about the decades of protest at Waitangi, and the enormous progress towards reconciliation we’ve made in New Zealand (still some way to go) I wondered what a freedom fighter who overthrew a government and became a democratic president might say … and found this:

20120206-122155.jpg

Reconciliation

There are many who did not understand that to heal we had to lance the boil. There are many who still do not understand that the obedient silence of the enslaved is not the reward of peace which is our due. There are some who cannot comprehend that the right to rebellion against tyranny is the very guarantee of the permanence of freedom.

Protest, or the ‘right to rebellion’ against what you judge to be tyranny is essential to freedom. And yet we have people in this country trying, still trying, to suppress protest, bleating about pandering to ‘radicals’.

There’s another quote from National Reconciliation Day (what a concept!) 16 December 1995:

Reconciliation means working together to correct the legacy of past injustice.

It’s up to each of us New Zealanders to decide whether we’re part of the solution … or, by impatient, intolerant vituperation of those with whom we disagree, we prove to be part of the problem.

It’s not easy, but, as Mandela told Parliament in Cape Town 25 February 1999, it’s vital to press through ‘difficult negotiations’.

The quest for reconciliation was the spur that gave life to our difficult negotiations process and the agreements that emerged from it.

Some of those from all political corners in this country know exactly what he means. And to their credit, the leaders among them pursued just Waitangi Treaty settlements from exactly that drive — overruling, if not ignoring the jeering cavils and complaints of those who tried (and still try) to hold them back with hateful objections … and insults.

– P

Is this what we want?

New Zealand’s system of government – an overview

(via elections.org.nz)

New Zealand is a democratic country in which the members of parliament (MPs) are chosen in free and fair elections. Citizens and permanent residents who are aged 18 years and over are required to enrol to vote. Voting is not compulsory, but turnout is high by international standards (although trending lower).

New Zealand has a single chamber of parliament which consists of the House of Representatives, which generally has 120 MPs, and the Governor-General (who does not personally attend the house). The house is elected for a maximum three-year term using the mixed member proportional (MMP) system. Every New Zealand citizen who is enrolled as an elector is eligible to be a candidate for election as an MP.

The government is accountable to parliament for its actions and policies. So ministers are answerable to parliament for their own actions and policies and for the actions and policies of the departments and state agencies for which they are responsible. Most ministers are members of cabinet, which is the main decision-making body of the government. Much of parliament’s scrutiny role is carried out by select committees.

New Zealand has an unwritten constitution and is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen of New Zealand, Queen Elizabeth II, is the Head of State. The Queen’s representative in this country is the Governor-General who has all the powers of the Queen in relation to New Zealand. Although an integral part of the process of government, the Queen and the Governor-General remain politically neutral and do not get involved in the political contest. The Governor-General does play an important constitutional role in the calling of elections, the life of Parliament, and the formation of a government.

New Zealand also has sub-national elected government bodies including territorial local authorities, district health boards, and school boards of trustees.

Really?

– P

It takes a crisis … Waitangi and its place in our constitution

Radio NZ News this Waitangi Day morning …

20120206-084420.jpg

The co-chair of a panel reviewing New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements says one of its biggest challenges is making the public aware that a review is taking place.
The public will be consulted on a range of questions from the size of Parliament to the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand should have a written constitution.
The existing constitution is made up of a range of documents, including the Bill of Rights, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Magna Carta.
The co-chair of the review’s independent panel, John Burrows, says apathy will be a huge challenge.
Professor Burrows says it tends to take a crisis to get people interested in constitutional matters, however he believes the panel can get the public’s attention.

What a statement! (it takes a crisis)

This is the constitutional review Winston Peters referred to in alarmist tones at his Kelston campaign speech last year. Personally, I think it’s a good idea to have a review, to korero and seek reconciliation.

Maintaining a position of ‘silence’ on important matters is infantile —akin to fingers in the ears ‘la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you’.

These issues, our constitutional ‘arrangements’ are the test of our nationhood, and refusal to engage in the discussion/argument because you might ‘lose’,… or labeling those who disagree with you as greedy or corrupt ‘scum’ as some do, demonstrates immaturity greatly at odds with the great statesmen of our nation — Maori or Pakeha (or both).

History is written by the victors, some say, but injustice buried is never truly settled. Consider South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its mission.

Expose the truth, acknowledge past misdeeds, redress where possiblethen we can ‘move on’.

– P