Every now and again we all take a risk with our relationship with people who are friends as well as having a different role in their employment. I’m doing it now but there was one of those moments during the summer school that was too good to let past.
Grant was leading a discussion around the pros and cons of a bipartisan approach on Foreign Affairs and Trade, where it works, where it is inappropriate etc. Obviously it is a real advantage to a government in having the major opposition party onside – and it is a big thing to oppose your own government offshore.
We were looking at a few quotes clippings and the media approach etc when the penny dropped for all in the room.
We do have a bipartisan approach to Foreign Affairs and Trade. Two groups where you can’t see daylight between them.
The NZ Herald and the National Party.
I’m not sure that this is solvable in the near future.
Execellent, I call time of death on Labour then.
LabRat – the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Labour governments all took Foreign Affairs positions that were criticised by the Herald and the National Party.
One of the reasons I joined Labour was listening to Kirk talk about the evils of nuclear testing in 1972.
You might want a policy that is brown nosed in its approach but I don’t.
The days of bodies for beef were meant to be well in the past.
I can’t have been that obtuse can I? Equating the Herald to the main opposition party?
Anyway, the problem with idealists is that they end up stinking up your house when they crash on your couch because they’re broke with bad personal hygene.
So LabRat principles should be for sale?
what on earth is labrat on about? he may smell but we don’t!
@ Dorothy. I was thinking the same thing. His pseudonym suggests he is on something experimental, and it hasn’t done him much good.
In regards to the link between the NZ Herald and the National Party . This is no real surprise , for 9 years we had a government and a leadership team who limited the damage that the Herald made in significant policy areas . This was challenged by the Herald in the months leading up to the last election upon the release of positive and negative editorals ( in summary ) There a claim of a 50 – 50 % split , which I would question . However since the election the Herald has become an extension of the governments arm . This has included foreign policy but also education , health , taxation and welfare . Media has the responsibity to publish news but also provide information to a range of different groups in New Zealand society .
@ Zac – Absolutley. Even if the journos themselves don’t support Labour, their sucking up to National is missing them out on some great journalistic oppertunites!
[...] apparently they have discussions of various policy issues. Trevor Mallard writes: Grant was leading a discussion around the pros and cons of a bipartisan approach on Foreign [...]
Following on from Zac Markham, I recall a Herald editorial during the 2008 election campaign which castigated a Labour candidate in a nasty and personal way because she had queried the right of some schools to demand “donations” from parents even if they couldn’t afford to pay them. Since then, the subject has gained wider publicity with a number of recognised experts criticising the donation system and, in light of that, calling for a review of school funding. The Herald supported the calls and produced a second editorial which was a complete turnaround from the one a year earlier.
What reason would a newspaper have to favour one party over another, surely this is commercial suicide.
Any thoughts as to why they seem to favour National???
Hi Anne
Perhaps I should have looked more closely at the editoral themselves , the topics covered and any changes of opinion of the Herald in particuliar . I recall the school donation issue that you make refrence to and you are totally correct in the changes in attitude . I have thought and continue to believe that we have the opportunity to change the view of media . We can only do this by providing a alternative view which is based on sound researched facts and information . In 2010 there will be opportunity to do so across both the media and political spectrum . I just hope common sense will be maintained on issues that if handled appropriately can improve New Zealand as a whole .
Any thoughts as to why they seem to favour National???
Hi Waterboy
At a guess – tradition, newspapers have established political slants based on the owner’s preference for editorial staff. The Herald’s is National. Also nine years of trying to get up stories attacking a Labour government would have established a culture of supporting the opposition. If you think back to 1999-2002, the media really was short on political stories given it is dirty laundry which sells papers (political stuff-ups are better stories than political successes. Stuff-ups run longer.)
As for commercial suicide, this is the newspaper which gives a weekly column to Garth George.
Also nine years of trying to get up stories attacking a Labour government would have established a culture of supporting the opposition
What I meant to write was
Also nine years of trying to get up stories attacking a Labour government would have established a culture of supporting the National party as when it was the opposition and its best source of stories opposing government actions.
@ Zac Markham. To expand a little on the donation editorials (actually they were less than a year apart) I kept the first one for a while so have good recall of it’s contents.The candidate’s public comment was used by the Herald writer(s?) to attack her personally and professionally and do damage to the then Labour govt. in the process. In other words it was motivated by politics and nothing else. The second editorial required no such motivation, so they were not only supportive but told the truth. Appalling behaviour from a major newspaper that pretends to be bi-partisan.
@Anne Hi
Impartial media is needed.
Totally agree that the herald has a major National ( or tory stance ) It was laughable when certain sections of the media complained about being controlled by the previous government , which was never the case . To really explore the depth of this philsophy displayed by this newspaper you need to look at the opinion writers – I agree Garth George is a joke !!! . Others like Debra Coddington I dont even bother with .The only voice for many of the issues from 2009 which included lower paid workers was Matt McCarten . At least this showed some of the issues that kiwi families were facing
True Zac.
I’d argue that Matt McCarten was printed to sanitise the newspaper against critism – one column running against the general tide of the ‘Herald’.
I read Coddington a couple of times, but I had to stop as the columns made me worry about the calibre of people who can get onto select committees.
I still worry about that, just not as much.