Ah, the irony of it all!

August 6, 2010

Two small observations that brought a wry smile to my face when I read about them in the paper this week:

1. Bill English announces that the ballooning number of government “policy advisors” will be slashed to save money. He says he is receiving advice from advisors on how the policy would be implemented. Will he receive advice from other policy advisors on who should be chosen to provide that advice?

2. The Press in Christchurch publishes an editorial on Thursday about Winston Peters and his plans to return to political life. Earlier in the week Peters addressed Rangiora Grey Power about fears that foreigners are buying up all the rest homes and retirement villages in NZ.

A quote from the editorial: “The topic Peters chose to speak on probably was not particularly significant. The purpose of his manoeuvrings at the moment is to try to regenerate interest in himself and the possibility of his return to Parliament. To that extent it no doubt served its purpose.”

It certainly did! The Press themselves fell into the trap with a huge front page article, including Peters’ face, reporting his speech in its full populist glory. As usual, Peters gets far more coverage than he’s worth, and our dutiful media fall for it yet again for the sake of more newspaper sales. So much for treating Peters’ topic as “not particularly significant”. So what significance should we give to a front-page lead story?

1 Comment | Media reporting, Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

When will we see some grown up political journalists?

June 20, 2010

Further to my carefully considered comments on the politicians’ credit card “scandal” story last week, I’m following it up with a little less subtlety and somewhat more anger and exasperation.

As this media-driven story runs on, the immaturity of the journalists chasing it becomes more obvious. Chasing Chris Carter around parliament to bombard him with demands that he apologise to the nation (for what, they are not clear), and then casting him in their TV news reports as evasive, having a “hissy fit”, or even in “meltdown” mode, just shows how childish and full of themselves these young journos are.

Watching them in action this past week, egged on by the older but ratings-driven John Campbell and Mark Sainsbury, made me realise just how young these media kids now are. Where are the wiser heads? The ones who can put it all in perspective, who can make the story more about the real issues and less about themselves?

Do they realise to what extent they can now control public perceptions? That they can selectively slant these stories to make them run on? They probably do, which is why they’re loving it.

The story of journos chasing Carter around parliament – justified by their bosses, when they were punished by parliament’s speaker with loss of their parking privileges, as being that they were trying to get information of “national importance” (give me a break!!) – has the appearance of seventh form kids running amok around their school having locked all the teachers in the gym. A sniff of their own power and they become centre of the universe.

I heard on radio that the trawl through the credit card receipts of politicians (which is probably showing that 99.9% of usages were perfectly legitimate, but who cares about them) showed one claimed by Gerry Brownlie when he (rather, we taxpayers) paid for drinks in a bar with some gallery journalists. Will that one come out? No way! Not when the knowing recipients of our public money were the journalists themselves!

Leave a Comment » | Media reporting, Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Shane Jones’s expenses scandal too much of a beat up

June 11, 2010

Whew! What a media and talkback frenzy about Labour MP Shane Jones and the several other pollies whose casual use of expense accounts have been revealed in their gory detail! The media are loving this, with statements repeated over and over and over: “Shane Jones watched porn movies using taxpayer money”, “Chris Carter had a massage at the taxpayers expense, flowers for gay partner”, etc etc.

Now I’m not going to defend the silliness and lax organisation of these and other affected politicians, but I am going to appeal for a sense of proportion and perspective, as well as for these holier-than-thou reporters to just temper their delight a bit.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier blog article (different topic) that I’m not overly impressed by the one getting the biggest beating up, Shane Jones, so I’m not defending him like a one-eyed Cantabrian would defend its rugby players no matter what they did on the field. He clearly has been cavalier and sloppy with his accounting, but I don’t equate sloppy with evil.

I’m convinced Jones (and in general the other politicians “found out”) weren’t trying to rort the system. I’m confident that none of them thought, ‘I’ll pay for this one using my MP’s expense account because I’ll get away with it, and it’s sort of a business expense’. I say this because I’ve done similar things myself from time to time with my personal and business accounts.

As my forbearing wife will attest, I’m a stickler for keeping business and personal finances separate, charging expenses to my small business only when there is unarguable justification. (For me it’s just not worth the risk of getting involved in a time-wasting and expensive tax audit process.) But there are times when for convenience I use the business card or bank account for a personal transaction and then pay it back at the end of the month when doing the bank reconciliation. It’s all noted in the records for the accountant to check.

I am aware that this procedure is against the rules of parliament – using the ministerial card when it’s convenient but paying it back from personal funds soon after, which is what Jones appears to have done. But going against the rules and being a cheat or fraudster are poles apart in such instances. (To me it’s like the difference between a motorist breaking the speed limit by 10kph and one overtaking on blind corners and double yellows.) However, those who used their card inappropriately but then did NOT repay do warrant further examination.

I’m also sure that Shane Jones is copping waaaaaay more venom and ridicule because some of it he spent on watching blue movies when away on trips. That’s not a crime. It’s not even a disgraceful thing for any person to do, be they a politician or a business person. And he repaid the costs at the time without prompting from the media. He’s not evil or disgusting or a cheat, he’s just been sloppy and inexact in his spur-of-the-moment accounting.

I am still more disturbed by Finance Minister Bill English’s deliberate and strategic endeavours, until exposed last year, to use the system to make or save significant sums of money through his privileged housing arrangements.

The common tool being used to beat up the politicians caught using their ministerial cards for personal expenses, again usually by the holier-than-thou brigade, is that it’s OK for private business owners to use their business to charge all sorts of dubious expenses to because it’s private money, not taxpayers’ money.

I’m not OK about that. They only do it to avoid paying tax. And every unjustifiable use of business accounts to avoid paying tax is a misuse of public money, because the rest of us have to pay extra tax to make up for their shortfall. Indirectly it’s just as bad a case of cheating as the politicians’ dodges.

4 Comments | Media reporting, Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Bailey Kurariki reflects badly on us all

March 27, 2010

Yet again, Bailey Kurariki is in the news after another brush with the law.

I may be wrong but …. I believe that all New Zealanders are at least partly responsible for Bailey ongoing personal problems and the challenge his behaviour is posing for authorities.

Bailey, now 20 years old, was convicted and imprisoned eight years ago for his part (deemed manslaughter) in a youth gang murder, and since his release he has been dogged by media hoping to catch him swearing or spitting at the cameras again or being hauled off to court for breaking some parole condition.

Bailey was created within a society that didn’t care about him, by parents who didn’t know how to care. He would have been marginalised from a very early age by any “decent, respectable” neighbours. “Johnny, I don’t want you to mix with that Bailey Kurariki, he’s trouble and not at all nice, best to steer clear.”

Bailey did what in retrospect seems pretty logical when not fitting into the mainstream – join in with a gang of like souls and get up to mischief. One day the mischief got too serious and they ambushed a pizza delivery man and bashed him. He died. Apparently Bailey’s role was to help lure the pizza man to the place where the others could attack.

Since then, I cannot remember having seen or heard one single media report that didn’t introduce Bailey as “the country’s youngest convicted killer, Bailey Kurariki ….” (this quote from the latest I found on the Stuff website this week). It’s a bit like always introducing John Key in local news as “New Zealand prime minister, John Key …” The idea is, apparently, that the five Kiwis who don’t already know this, will now it know, and the other 4 million reading will have it reinforced.

So now we can no longer ever consider Bailey as anyone other than NZ’s youngest convicted killer. Legally this is probably right. But, without wanting to trivialise his part in it, apparently he didn’t actually do the killing, he was just an accessory. But we’ll always know him as a killer.

Because of his age at the time (12), good arguments were made that he couldn’t be held fully responsible for an adult-equivalent conscious decision to assist in the killing. So he was not sent to adult prison but to a youth corrections facility, to keep mixing with other maladjusted boys. All went quiet for a few years until 2008 when he was approaching release time, and then TV showed us images of a mature, good-looking and strapping teenager. How would he react?

New Zealand’s Youngest Convicted Killer (there, I’ve said it again! Let’s save space by calling him NZYCK) was about to be let loose on parole. There must be a story there for the news media, if they could just follow him around and watch for any recidivistic activity.

Sure enough, some breaches of parole conditions. Many parolees must break the rules from time to time, I’m sure, but with a high-profile cases such as NZYCK the media get excited and try filming him on his way to court, and specially after he leaves the building.

I remember how uneasy I felt when I saw his first such appearance on TV news. Cameras in his face, following his steps, trying to get into his space, provoking a reaction. And they got it – he dutifully spat in their direction. Perfect! Everyone watching on telly said what a mongrel, should still be locked up.

After a few episodes of this, including replays of that footage whenever his name was mentioned again in little items (like “NZYCK Bailey Kurariki was today spoken to by probation staff for talking to a female when his conditions forbid it”), a few weeks ago we get a leading NZ daily sending two young female journalists to interview him at his home, to see how he felt about this-that-and-the-other. This could only be interpreted as yet another attempt – and what a soft target he is by now – to provoke some uncivilised behaviour. They got it! So he is now back preparing to face another judge for obscene and abusive behaviour.

I won’t ask “what were they thinking?” because we all know the answer already. They knew what his reaction would be.

So back to my thesis. This young man has, from his early days, been marginalised and now put on the opposite of a pedestal – in a deep pit, demonised as an uncivilised killer and uncouth in front of cameras. We all did it – in the early days by not caring and providing no community support for him and his family, and now by using the media as our proxy to chase him around and poke into his private life to prove that he has no place in society.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Bailey does re-offend seriously and spend more time behind bars. It may well be too late for any change. We spent the past 8 years demonising him as NZYCK, and since his release we as a society have given him absolutely no realistic chance of starting a new life with new supports. We seem to want to have our NZYCK forever, and to encourage the media who provoke him in order that we can say – “There, I told you he’s a mongrel. Lock him away.”

15 Comments | crime, Media reporting, Prison policy | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

A word of appreciation to Steven Joyce

March 8, 2010

Apropos of nothing much else in particular, I’m posting a brief note registering approval of the way Steven Joyce is going about his job.

Steven is the Minister for Quite a Few Things in the current NZ government, it seems, including infrastructure, communications and transport. When he was first appointed I was one of many I know who were rather apprehensive, given his reputation leading up to the last elections for “astute” right-wing political dealings.

For all I know (not having met him or seen him in person), he may be an expert in back-room political machinations, or he may be a humble, thoughtful but direct man. His demeanour on television and radio certainly suggests the latter.

What I do want to praise is the unusually honest way he deals with the electronic media whenever he’s interviewed. A real breath of fresh air. I’m becoming increasingly weary of politicians and public officials who have clearly been taught the standard avoidance technique, the “What I can tell you … ” ploy:

“And Mr Official, does this mean that you will be changing the procedure to speed up the service within the next few months?”

“Mr Interviewer, what I can tell you is that we are committed to providing the fastest possible service.”

“So will it be a few months or a few years before the procedure is changed?”

“What I can tell you is that going forward changes will be made that the public will really like.”

Joyce is one of the few politicians I’ve heard in ages who simply answers the question, without a hint of pre-assembled on-message preaching in sound bites (as per Phil Goff), jovial but evasive near-enough truths (a la John Key) or straight-out avoidance of saying anything factual that might come back to haunt them (pretty much every other NZ politician).

For all I know, this may be a technique Joyce uses to disarm his interviewers or opponents. But I still want to record that I appreciate his style of politics. He comes across as confident and unflustered, seems to have an astute brain, clearly works hard, has avoided scandals so far, and has a physical presence.

For the record, I also agree with many of the things he’s introducing to the governing policy mix, including much of the changes to the problematic road safety rules.

8 Comments | Media reporting, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers