This morning, this is what David Farrar blogged on the US SOPA Bill which was blocked by Obama:
My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet.
Earlier this morning he was on Radio NZ commenting (in his role as right wing commentator) on the NZ on Air fiasco saying it is:
”perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.
So it’s ok to censor the broadcaster and use the government agency that funds it to restrict New Zealander’s access to well produced evidence-based documentaries that raise legitimate concerns about important issues facing the nation during an election campaign.
But we mustn’t censor the internet. According to Farrar.
Inconsistent. I don’t agree with the scheduling of many programmes on television. I certainly don’t think that politicians should be interferring in, when and if material can be shown on television during an election campaign. If the issue was lack of balance, then there are places to complain. The BSA and the Electoral Commission. That’s what should have happened.
NZ on Air should never have got involved in the issue. That they did, appears to be because of inappropriate politically motivated pressure.
Suggestions that publicly funded programmes should not be aired during an election campaign reveal serious cracks in our democratic process and must be resisted.
Rubbish, Rosemary. Here was me thinking that liberal thinkers were intellectually mature enough to realise that there are two sides to everything.
The causes of child poverty are a matter of opinion that are highly debatable (and the issues involved are contentious). The perils / benefits of privatisation are also a matter of opinion and are debatable.
You’re either for censorship or you’re not. Which is it?
Had a think about this comment. Decided you are a troll. Banned. Clare
Clare, given DPF’s rebuttal, are you able to give us some examples of where he has attacked Red Alert in some way?
With regards the inconsistency issue, it seems to me perfectly valid to have one opinion regarding censorship of the internet, and another relating to government funded television programmes being shown in close proximity to an election. They appear to be different beasts and thus no hypocrisy is involved.
I do sympathise with both sides of the argument, a critical doco a few days before a general election is not ideal. It means the ideas do not get a thorough debating in public before the election.
But it’s healthy to be critical and especially during an election campaign. WE should be greatful that NZ on Air supported this documentary.
I don’t think the gov, if they have a hand in funding content, should have a say in how/when it is broadcast. Once created (unless breaking laws) things should have a life of their own.
If anything the reason this doco stands out so much is because of the lack of documentry content during and around the election.
More restriction on communication is a cop out. The real problem is the lack of quality discourse. If we had more content critiquing policy and conduct from as many perspectives as possible this would be a non-issue.
Spot on from Anne “A complaint was received from an ‘Alastair Bell’ who is apparently on the National Party’s board and manages their media and public relations exercises. He was also a former senior adviser to Jenny Shipley. His complaint was taken up by board member Stephen McElrea, who also happens to be John Key’s electorate chairman and the National Party’s northern region deputy chairman.”
Farrar, Hooten and Blubberboy – Self-serving nat party stooges one and all.
Shows how worried they already are about being thrown out in 2014.
Accusing someone of hypocrisy and censorship in a post and then censoring responses leaves yourselves open to perceptions of hypocrisy. The blogosphere will keep punishing you, Red Alert and Labour (often way more than is justified but that’s how it works) if you do things like this.
I don’t know if you understand that blogging’s a level playing field and doesn’t operate on a normal MP/pleb basis. You might be able to enforce your double standards on your own blog but you will be slayed for it elsewhere, often where there will be much higher readership.
You can’t control it, you can only join it. If you try to play by traditional one-sided PR rules you will keep stumbling, and the other side will be happy to trip you.
If you truly believe in open government and free speech then try more openness and freedom, don’t blame others for your suppressions.
I’ve posted a more thoughts on this (too long to put it all in here).
It was wrong of the maker of that documentary to insist it be played right before the election, and I understand why NZ on Air was uncomfortable funding it. But I don’t think it hurt.
No-one likes seeing beneficiaries with Sky dishes and flatscreen TVs smoking while their kids go hungry. But it’s not as if watching that documentary is going to make anyone vote Labour! (The election results prove this.)
Child poverty will be helped with a benefit card, not by giving more drug money to the parents.
Shows how worried they already are about being thrown out in 2014.
Spot on from allens.
Shows how worried they already are about being thrown out in 2014.
Spot on from allens.
OMG it’s 2009 all over again.
“OMG it’s 2009 all over again”
Or 1984, citizen Tim.
@Anne, I’m glad you and Aliens approve of continuing the (successful???) Labour election strategy of attacking the person, and perpetuating the “nasty” and the negative. Will you never learn?
Anne, I’m glad you and Aliens approve of continuing the (successful???) Labour election strategy of attacking the person, and perpetuating the “nasty” and the negative. Will you never learn?
Nah. I don’t like National Party stooges – especially those who use their political appointments on quangos like ‘NZ on Air’ to interfere with the democratic rights of news media outlets, doco. producers and other NZers. What’s more, given one of them was John Key’s electorate chairman it was presumably with John Key’s covert encouragement. I will continue to attack all of them – and in particular John Key – whenever I see politically motivated bad behaviour by Nat. pollies and their lackeys, and the likes of you and your like-minded trolls can go to hell in a handbasket. Savvy?
Anne, are you savvy about politically motivated bad behaviour by posters on blogs like this? Maybe only when you see it from others.
And are you savvy about the effect name calling and abuse can have on perceptions of a party? And how that could affect publicity and party support?
It’s odd how many on blogs are so antagonistic towards anyone judged to be ‘enemy’ (not just here, The Standard is notorious for it). It tends not to attract back ex voters, maybe the party is still in bitter venting mode and is not yet ready for serious rebuilding.
“I’m glad you and Aliens approve of continuing the (successful???) Labour election strategy of attacking the person, and perpetuating the “nasty” and the negative. Will you never learn?”
You flatter yourself. To be brutally honest, I’m really not that interested in your opinions.
But you go ahead trolling the mps and party supporters on the Labour party blogsite.
Quite ironic in a thread about censorship and political interference.
Bryan Gould has done it again with his always intelligent and insightful commentary. May I alert Labour pollies to his latest effort: ‘Insidious attacks on press freedom’.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10780431
Great stuff.
@Anne – “To be brutally honest, I’m really not that interested in your opinions.” That really does say a great deal doesn’t it about the left. Where’s the irony in a post about censorship? The only irony I see is you continuing to perpetuate hate and division, which is a shabby and pointless emotion, when I point out your flaws in thinking. Are you suggesting that I should be censored for disagreeing with you? Are you suggesting the only thoughts allowed are those that agree with yours. Indeed the additional irony is that you attempt to shut down and are “not interested” in debate you don’t agree with in a post about censorship. The only “political interference” you can see through your skewed view, are facts which interfere with your message which the voters rejected. Laughable.
@Anne – “To be brutally honest, I’m really not that interested in your opinions.”
Really Dave, your reading skills are poor. You’ve got the wrong person, I never said the above. Mind you it’s true. Few at this site would give a damm about your opinions apart from your fellow trolls of course. Are you paid per comment or did you negotiate a weekly fee?
@Anne, no payment just do it out of concern for the effect your misguided hysterical missives are having on the ever decreasing circle which is the Labour Party. Feel free to continue with your attacks to limit free speech that you don’t agree with, it cracks me up. As I said attacking the person really worked out well the last time, so by all means please continue with this ever so clever strategy to win the hearts and minds of middle New Zealand. BTW has Labour even noticed the POAL strikes??? The silence is deafening from a Party owned and financed by the Unions.
Lol @ Dave’s excuse for being caught out mid troll
“The problem as I see it is the obnoxious electoral finance act that suppresses free speech in NZ by requiring anyone who wants to spend money promoting an issue that is an election issue to register their intentions if they are going to spend more than $12000.”
Yes, we need to be more like America where it costs Billions of dollars to fight to become a presidential candidate and then more billions to become President. That will go along way to creating and equal, democratic system.
If TV3 broke a law it needs to be held to account.
IF NZ On Air hadn’t raised this issue does it mean a privately funded documentary would have annoyed those who disagreed with it, but not prompted a complaint to the appropriate authorities?
Surely even those on the right (including David Farrar) would agree that if someone on NZ ON Air board with a particular political bent used that to advance a party he favored is worth questioning too?
I didnt watcht he documentary so have no idea how biased or even handed it was. I heard the director on radio the other day correcting one point being made which asserted he “said” something in particular, he corrected it by saying “he” didn’t say it an expert or similar said it.
Yet another instance where we will never know the truth because it became a political football and all sides kicked it around.
In the end we can probably all agree on one thing. There are children living awful lives in NZ but many in positions to help change that would rather attack the messenger than find solutions to the message.
Pot calling kettle black alert
“your misguided hysterical missives… a Party owned and financed by the Unions.”
@Tracey, which I think is precisely the point. The National Party is funded by those that want their policies to be implemented, and the Labour Party is funded by those who want their policies funded. What seems to be the problem? Is one form of funding less in your eyes than another? Is it that you wish to limit funding only from unions to limit the ability of those that oppose left wing thinking to express their views, or is there some other reason?
@Aliens LOL indeed, there were indeed some big words in my post, but never fear google has some good dictionaries you can use to figure it out. “Hooked on Phonics” may also be useful for you.
@Anne, no payment just do it out of concern…
No payment. So, you are an unpaid volunteer troll. Very noble of you.
Note that the The Standard site has posted on Bryan Gould’s outstanding article “Insidious attacks on press freedom” that I linked to yesterday – 11:12am.
@Anne, thank you it is indeed noble of me, someone has to has to cut through your dribble. You of course, need to remember that the concept of nobility and left wing thinking are mutually exclusive, given the actions they take.
Dave – do you believe that businesses which lobby Governments are not seeking funding in one form or another? EG Warners with a tax break, or a company getting underwritten or guaranteed (SCF/ AMI) or the farming lobby getting exempted from carbon tax while forestry has to pay it from forests planted since 1990?
Do you accept that the Chair, Directors and CEO’s of Fletcher’s and Carter Holt, for example, have more money and access to Government Ministers to impact, say, regulations around their products, than say, a homeowner has? Do you accept that those two companies have more financial wherewithall to fund television or print or radio campaigns of those pushing their favoured view compared to an average homeowner?
I believe that there should be a set amount for election campaigns and it should come from tax payer funds. I believe that polls should cease at least 2 months prior to an election.
I believe that the unions attempt to influence policy as much as they can. I don’t believe that all employers are evil and that all unions are good. I believe that some people in business are selfish and self serving and I believe some in unions are too. I also believe the majority ion both those groups are working hard for what they believe without evil intent. Even Australia from whom so many seem to take the lead and aspire to be like, have strong unions and their society and economy hasn’t collapsed.
“Is it that you wish to limit funding only from unions to limit the ability of those that oppose left wing thinking to express their views” Can you say this another way because I haven’t quite grasped the essence of it?
Are you asking me if I want to limit funidng (can you explain what you mean by funding – do you mean party contributions?) of the Labour Party by Unions just so that it will mean that those who support the National or ACT parties are also limited? If that is what you are suggesting it is absurd and cannot be rationally taken from my comments. If you mean something else, I will happily answer.
Can you comment on these questions?
“Surely even those on the right (including David Farrar) would agree that if someone on NZ ON Air board with a particular political bent used that to advance a party he favored is worth questioning too? ”
Do you believe that focusing on this kind of “issue” or “non issue” helps reduce the number of children abused in NZ? Reduces domestic violence? Reduces alcohol and drug related crime? Increases literacy and performance at school by our children?
Create jobs and get rid of the red neck commentators saying those on welfare are their by choice.
Come on, Dave, that’s a poor series of retorts.
You’ve got to do better than that if you want to work your way up the Red Alert troll league
Luckily for you this blogsite has tolerant moderation, and censorship of opposing views isn’t an issue, even when repeatedly so poorly put.
Shame the national party and it’s cronies can’t do the same, crying foul over a public funded tv documentary shown during the election campaign.
It’ll be reds under the bed next
@Aliens, no I don’t think the reds are under the bed, more in bed waiting for the next benefit payment
someone has to has to cut through your dribble.
I think you meant drivel Dave. Let’s call it quits while we’re both on top.
Btw, I liked your haiku.
Surely not, Dave.
The unemployed wouldn’t have time to lay idle in their beds when according to most red neck blue veins, they’re all so busy drinking, buying drugs and shopping for the latest big screen tvs.
So apart from posting snides, slurs and venting an apparent hatred of left of center politics, you must be relieved the mps here don’t censor or conspire to keep your views off air like key’s cronies are currently aiming to do.
Who’d have thought, it’s the ‘reds’ that champions free speech afterall.
You should write to Trevor Mallard and thank him.
INteresting twist in the media programme as electioneering tale. All the outrage over the so-called biased child poverty documentary which was deemed not to be in breach of any laws, and yet yesterday…
“The Electoral Commission said that despite statements that the show was an “election-free zone”, Mr Key had associated himself with well-known people and had a chance to raise his personal profile unchallenged. It said this was likely to be seen to encourage people to vote for Mr Key or National.
“In the commission’s view it is unrealistic for a programme hosted by the Prime Minister or any other prominent politician to be ‘election-free’, irrespective of its content, when the host is in the midst of contesting a parliamentary election as party leader and candidate.”
the article in the Herald then states
“Mr Key’s office said it was now a matter between the police and RadioLive and he would not comment.”
Not quite true he made VERY light of it at the Halberg’s last night which is odd, cos with the teapot tapes and other things he has zipped his lip and “left it to the police”, last night he thought it was hilarious and something to make light of.
yea yea, he’s just being an oridnary NZer but no rabid criticism of his and the Radio Stations breach of a rule which gave an advantage during our democratic process? Sauce for the goose and all that.
He made the longest speech of the night last night (I was there) and never mentioned the work of the Trust or disabled children and their amazing guts and determination to play sport. Not once.