On Mon, 06 Jan 2020 13:19:21 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 05 Jan 2020 23:34:48 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Gordon Post by Tony
Surely this must be opened up again and get to the truth.
The last government may have done it badly but this one is compounding it.
Just bad politics, and before that bad reporting. For interest I
Close to defamation but you would love that. The Standard is a superb example
of appalling pseudo journalism and is in absolutely no position to criticise
anybody who can string two words together. It is a political mouthpiece that
spouts rhetoric, innuendo and downright lies. It is not alone of course but
that does not justify what it publishes.
Post by Rich80105
He appears to have once been a conservatve member of Labour, but is
now one of the divisive reporters (I do not see much journalism)
scrabbling in a difficult environment to make a living. His article
is silly season stuff,
You would have to think that because there is plenty of unpalatable (to you)
truth in the article.
Wel there certainly are a few. The video at the start is described as
"Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern reviews the year that was, and gives
some insight into her Christmas traditions." - but that is probably
some sub-editor trying to put fact into a light article.
Yes diehard Nats were flipping books and magazines; they videoed
themselves doing it, and some commentators saw that it had been done.
The instigator of the 'campaign' was later identified through a media
source (not through Twitter) as being a previously known National
supporter, but it is not clear where the source for that information
came from. Certainly the 'campaign' was not successful - it was
largely ignored. THere were a few rabid comments in support on the
Kiwiblog site, which dog-whistles for extremist comments quite
frequently, but was I think only mentioned in passing in comments on
The Standard. The extremist comments were made after the instigator
had been identified and refused to back down. There is no evidence as
any of the sort of comments described by Quinn as coming from
"left"supporters - indeed it is more characteristic of National's
"dirty tricks" from a few years ago - witht he degree of nastiness
designed to distract from the extremism of a Nat supporter and thir
inability to control him and others.
In particular the "opinion" of Quinn in saying "... the PM's
self-appointed cheerleaders took rapaciously to Twitter, drumming up
likes and retweets by dialling the spiteful rhetoric to
eleventy-stupid." is a disgraceful and unsupported slur - to
over-react with hatred is not the style of the PMs communications
staff - quite the opposite. It is contradicted to an extent by this
later in the article : "Much has been written, including by me, about
the troubling rise of populist Right-wing and nationalist sentiment
across the West. Reactionaries are emboldened like never before, in my
lifetime at least. Who knows whether the clamour they generate is the
death rattle of a beleaguered elite or the roaring engines of a new
and enduring conservatism? "
followed by "But, on the Left, casting our adversaries as stupid
bigots strikes me as obviously misguided." If it is indeed so
obvious (and I see no reason to disagree, then it makes more sense to
look to a likely culprit seeking to deflect from the obvious problem
on the Right. As you have said in another thread, Tony, "Best to
ignore silliness and not become even worse behaved."
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
appearing to pick up on an earlier opinion
piece to write a close to plagiarised article - but to some all that
is legitimate as ït is only an opinion - after all an opinion does not
have to make sense, does it?
Rhetorical question but I will try to help you anyway - your penchant for
sarcasm aside, there are hundreds of examples where you post opinions that make
no sense; why is it not acceptable for others to post opinions with or without
It is of course, but I was not referring to posts on nz.general, but
to an article published by Stuff which has such obvious lack of logic
or factual support.