Il nodo irrisolto. La risoluzione dell'Onu del 1947, respinta dagli arabi, prevedeva la creazione in Palestina di due Stati, uno ebraico e uno palestinese. Per Gerusalemme veniva stabilito uno status di corpo separato. Al termine del primo conflitto arabo-israeliano, la città restò divisa in due: il settore ovest in mano israeliana, quello est, dove si trovano i principali luoghi santi delle tre religioni monoteiste, in mano giordana. Nel 1967 Israele occupò anche i quartieri orientali. Quelli che i palestinesi rivendicano e che considerano capitale del futuro stato di Palestina. Nel 1980, Israele proclamò la città sua "eterna e indivisa capitale", uno status non riconosciuto dagli altri Stati.

"Gerusalemme capitale di Israele". Proprio questo fu uno dei grandi ostacoli che fece fallire gli accordi del luglio di otto anni fa a Camp David, nel Maryland, svolti con la mediazione dell'ultimo presidente democratico Bill Clinton. I protagonisti allora erano l'ex premier israeliano Ehud Barak e lo storico leader palestinese Yasser Arafat. Sul futuro di Gerusalemme il senatore dell'illinois ha però precisato: "Quello di capitale è uno status finale che dovrà essere deciso dai negoziati e in accordo con i palestinesi. La comunità internazionale, inclusi gli Usa, non riconosce la rivendicazione israeliana di Gerusalemme come sua 'eterna e indivisa capitale'". Nei confronti dei palestinesi, Obama apre all'Anp e chiude ad Hamas. Poco prima di arrivare a Sderot, era a Ramallah, dove ha garantito al presidente Abu Mazen che se verrà eletto sarà "un attore importante" nel processo di pace per il Medio Oriente.

"Programma nucleare grave minaccia". Anche sull'Iran, la posizione di Obama è un misto di continuità e cambiamento. "Gli iraniani devono capire che sia l'amministrazione Bush che, se sarà, quella di Obama, la questione rimane una preoccupazione degli Usa: il mondo deve evitare che Teheran ottenga un'arma nucleare". Ma l'unica via per indicata per raggiungere l'obiettivo è quella diplomatica: "La comunità internazionale deve agire con bastone e carota", per convincere la Repubblica Islamica a sospendere il suo programma di arricchimento dell'uranio. "Penso che per noi ci sia anche la possibilità di applicare sanzioni più rigide - ha concluso Obama - ma anche di migliorare la relazioni con la comunità internazionale nel momento in cui decidano di interrompere il nucleare".

Le nuove leggi della democrazia semplificata confermano un'ispirazione chiara: punire i poveri. A qualcuno, anche tra i nostri lettori, questo sembrerà il solito allarme. Sarebbe un errore piuttosto grossolano giudicare così la nuova imboscata estiva che, una volta completato il suo iter, condannerebbe alla chiusura almeno una trentina di testate, da Carta a Rassegna sindacale passando per il manifesto e l'Avvenire. È vero, è capitato qualcosa di simile, seppur in versione omeopatica, sia con i precedenti governi del centrodestra che con quelli di centrosinistra. Tuttavia, come indicano chiaramente le bufere che investono i migranti, i medici o gli insegnanti, la democrazia semplificata ha raggiunto ora un grado ben più elevato di maturazione. E per l'informazione, pietra angolare della qualità della democrazia italiana, si procede a vele spiegate. Un esempio? Ecco il commento ai tagli sui contributi diretti di Carlo Malinconico Castriota Scanderberg, il nuovo presidente della Fieg, la federazione degli editori, nota come la Confindustria dei giornali, anche perché i proprietari di soli giornali, cioè gli editori «puri», lì dentro sono più rari dei pinguini al polo nord. «Il governo ha giustamente sottolineato la necessità di valorizzare i contributi indiretti [quelli ai colossi dell'editoria, ndr], sono più market friendly», ha detto Malinconico. Per semplificare.

il Governo ha tirato diritto, anzi ha disarticolato ulteriormente il provvedimento con un emendamento dell'ultima ora. Attenzione! Si tratta di 27 quotidiani editi da cooperative di giornalisti; di 12 quotidiani organi di partito, di 13 quotidiani e periodici di movimenti politici. Ma quale pluralismo nel sistema italiano dell' informazione resterebbe se gran parte di queste testate dovessero scomparire? Dal Manifesto al Corriere Mercantile, dal Cittadino Oggi al Corriere di Forlì, dal Nuovo Corriere Bari Sera a Rinascita, dalla Voce di Mantova alla Cronaca, da AREA al Corriere Nazionale, Metropoli Day e così via, per tanti, tanti altri ancora. Senza citare le difficoltà gravi che si abbatterebbero sull'Avvenire, Il Riformista, Il Foglio e su tutti i veri giornali di partito. Mediacoop si augura che il Senato, nell'interesse del Paese, raccolga il nostro appello, valuti con grande attenzione e saggezza il provvedimento che sarà al suo esame ed impedisca tale grave disastro. Tra l'altro una domanda è rimasta sospesa e senza risposta: come è possibile con un regolamento di semplificazione legislativa modificare disposizioni assunte con norma primaria?

Le preoccupazioni dell'FNSI non tardano a farsi sentire:«Ci sono imprese -sottolinea la Fnsi- non meramente mercantili per le quali, nel rispetto della trasparenza e della correttezza, è giusta l'assunzione di un onere pubblico quale intervento sui costi della democrazia, di cui l'informazione è un asse fondamentale. Prima di tagli generalizzati, oggi motivo di incertezza per il futuro anche per chi ha le carte in regola, è necessario avviare e definire una seria riforma dell'editoria che faccia giustizia dei luoghi comuni, che faccia economia di spese eliminando il sostegno alle imprese pirata, che non travolga anche chi merita perché fa vera informazione, arricchendo il panorama del pluralismo e assicurando il corretto impiego del lavoro giornalistico».

Scoopit!

The Herald on Sunday editorialises on Poohgate.

The trouble with occupying the moral high ground is that the only way out is down. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has spent the weekend of his party's 15th-anniversary conference trying to finesse his late, lame admission that expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn did, in fact, make a $100,000 payment, the existence of which Peters has so vehemently denied.

But what is plain is that he did not tell the whole truth about the matter.

The Herald on Sunday titled the editorial:

Peters skidding on a slippery slope from moral high ground

Adam doubts that Peters ever had the moral high ground, certainly not in this commentator's eyes. Be that as it may, the editorial makes a number of sound points and raises questions over who should have known what and when.

The HoS notes:-

Peters presumably wants the public to accept that it did not occur to him at any time to wonder whether the money ended up in another account. Such an omission would be scandalous and lazy in a journalist; in a politician under fire, the most charitable explanation for it is carelessness. It certainly does not accord with the high standards of accounting he expects - indeed demands - from others.

Quite right. Indeed, for many years Peters has specialised in fomenting perceptions of scandal or corruption, yet has signally failed to bag any real scalps. Though he has never seemed to mind using Parliamentary privilege to make his accusations.

Adam was pleased to note the concluding paragraphs to the editorial:-

Peters, who is lauded on the party website for his tenacious pursuit of fairness and accountability, may like to explain who decided - and when - that the money should go into the legal fund. Barely three months out from an election in which he looks very unlikely to take Tauranga and with his party vote languishing below the threshhold, he would be wrong to hope that this matter will go away.

Whether an unequivocal explanation would be enough to save Peters' political bacon is a moot point. He has gained and maintained political power by resort on the hustings to a crude populism that has tended to appeal to ignorance and prejudice or rely on meaningless gimmickry like the SuperGold card for senior citizens.

He may be past his use-by date in any case. But now, more than ever, the man who has campaigned on his commitment to keeping the big players honest, cannot afford to be - or even to seem to be - evasive.

It has been good to see the MSM bestir itself to tackle Peters. It would be good to see this continue, not just in respect of Peters, but other issues generally.

Whether or not the issue will gain sufficient traction to persuade New Zealand First supporters to 'wake up and smell the coffee' remains to be seen, given what has been reported of their views so far.

What Adam would really like to see is the NZ Police and the Electoral Commission to bestir themselves to investigate as to whether there has been any breaches of the law, without waiting for someone to lay a complaint.

Surely, there have been enough questions raised in respect of this issue, that those responsible for enforcing the law actually investigate to see if the law has been complied with.

Would that be too much to hope for?

Is Adam's wish really such an outlandish one?

Is such a wish unreasonable?

Is it so wrong, to want Peters to be judged by the same standards that he has always said should be applied to others, such as transparency, honesty and compliance with the law?

Can Adam be confident that these wishes will be fulfilled?

Scoopit!

Truly Winston Peters is Pinocchio. Today Tim Hume reports, in an article in The Sunday Star Times on how Peters continues to bluster, obfuscate and generally squirm his way around the issue of the payment by Owen Glenn to his lawyer.

The article in it's headline indicates the stance Peters is taking, blaming the media. Tim Hume commences the article with:-

AN UNBOWED and belligerent Winston Peters continued to attack the media yesterday and denied he had misled the public over an expatriate billionaire's $100,000 contribution to his legal bills.

Adam is reminded of the quip by Mandy Rice-Davies, a bit player in the Profumo affair. Rice-Davies, when giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Davis, responded to the prosecuting counsel pointing out that Lord Astor denied having an affair or having even met her, replied,

"Well, he would, wouldn't he?"

This quip has passed into general usage. (Tangentially, Adam would note that Profumo's downfall was brought about not so much because of his marital indiscretion as to his having misled the House of Commons.)

The report goes on:-

"Not one cent went to New Zealand First, not one cent went to me," he told reporters at New Zealand First's 15th anniversary convention at Auckland's Alexandra Park.

"A donation was made to a legal case, which is a massive difference to what you're trying to say."

Semantically it is possible that a case could be made that not one cent went to NZ First, though questions remain over the money trail.

Adam thinks that it might be useful to ponder the question over whether or not NZ First would have benefited, in effect, from Mr Glenn's largesse if Mr Peters litigation had been successful.

In regard to the question as to whether Peters received the money, Adam accepts that the money was paid to the lawyer and not to Peters. Thus again semantically correct. Let us not forget that Peters is a lawyer.

Where Adam takes issue is with the impression which Peters thus creates of not receiving any benefit.

To Adam's mind Peters benefited from this payment as he did not have to pay his legal bills himself. Therefore, Adam considers this is equivalent to Peters receiving the money and then paying the lawyer.

Rodney Hide on TVNZ's Agenda programme this morning raised concerns over this and whether laws had been breached.

Peters then renewed his attacks on the media:-

He angrily renewed his attack on the New Zealand Herald, which last week published emails revealing the donation. "They got all the facts wrong, and I still say they should apologise to New Zealand First and the public and do their duty and resign."

Adam does not agree that the Herald was wrong in substance. In fact with the admission by Peters the whole area of political funding has become even murkier. Adam thinks that Peters at the very least is being hypocritical given comments he has made in the past about political funding and transparency.

These disclosures raise critical questions concerning the governance process within NZ First, which need to be dispelled. Adam intends to comment on some of these at a later date.

What Adam found very disappointing were the comments attributed in the report to NZ First members at the conference:-

While many of the delegates expressed surprise at the admission the donation had been received, after such emphatic denials from Peters, his support appeared undiminished.

"He convinced me and I think he probably convinced the majority here," said Peter McCormack, a television technician who has been a party member for six years.

"Maybe when he was saying `no, no, no', in his own mind he was right, until yesterday. Mind you, I would side with Winston even if he was wrong."

George McLean, the party's 82-year-old committee chair in Helensville, said Winston was "as straight as a bullet".

Party treasurer Brent Catchpole said Peters' account of the donation was credible.

"New Zealand First had no involvement with the petition that money was for. It was a petition brought by Winston as a member of parliament."

Adam can scarcely credit such remarks being made given the available information.

Though it would appear that the following quotation, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, still applies:-

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Let us hope that at the coming general election it is the final phrase that applies in respect of Winston Peters.

Scoopit!

Chicago Hope doesn't have such a couple and strangely enough I don't even miss that. I obviouly don't need to ship someone to enjoy watching a show. It's still different with CH. I really enjoy watching it, they've got pretty interesting cases and it's fun to see how much alike hospitals shows are. I guess the amount of gripping and realistic patients storylines is limited after all.
I like most of the characters (some more, some less) although I'm not too attached to anyone or care much about what's going to happen to them. And that is indeed a strange experience for me, because I usually get attached to someone on a TV show. At Chicago Hope I just like watching them. Period. It's a pretty liberating TV viewing experience :-)

Although I have to admit that "Jack-Mack" *g* became my favorite character pretty soon. He is just the coolest and especially his interaction with Aaron Shut is so much fun to watch. Last night I watched the episode where Aaron gets to know / starts dating the physical therapist Karen (?). Ever since she taught him how to walk "properly" and he walked out in this ridiculous waltzing way, I was so looking forward to what Jack would say about that. And waiting for that short moment was so worth it, because it totally cracked me up.

Jack: What's with the limp?
Aaron: I'm not limping!
Jack: Fine. I'm just an orthopedist. What do I know...

I already know I'm going to watch at least one more episode tonight. Or maybe two... Talk about another (but still different) TV show addiction...

Scoopit!

As I recently said to someone who was trying to understand that company, TVNZ is a vertically-anally-nasally integrated organisation. There is a clearly defined management totem pole, with those at the bottom constantly nervously referring upwards for decisions and those at the top imperiously issuing orders downwards.

Bill Ralston - NZ Journalist and broadcaster, writing in the Herald on Sunday for July 13, 2008.

This seemed very appropriate given the various statements recently from the TVNZ management suite.

Scoopit!

Scoopit!

When I first read a few blogs this morning I was merely depressed. Then, I went out and purchased the Sunday Star Times and the Herald on Sunday, and became some what despairing. Now I am bloody furious.

Why am I furious.

Well, firstly yet more column inches of newsprint and by my count at least some 15 items between the two papers mention or are devoted to the messy, tawdry Veitch business. Much of this could be dealt with in say two articles per paper. Radio is not much better and much of talkback is consumed with this matter.

There is a valid issue over what his bosses knew and when, but the rest is a media feeding frenzy to feed the slavering public hordes.

Yes it is dreadful, but as yet we do not have all the facts, but Veitch has been tried, executed and his remains burned in the fire of public self righteousness. Nothing is more appalling than the NZ public indulging in an orgy of prurient self congratulation over sticking it to a pathetic little man like Veitch.

I am not supporting Veitch, in fact I have never liked the man and do not watch or listen to him unless there is no option in the context of a programme I am watching/listening to for other reasons. Further, I never, ever watch the moronic Game of Two Halves.

My post is about what this whole affair, from a media perspective, says about New Zealand society

On a factual level, I am surprised that a woman whose back was broken in 4 places supposedly was back at work so quickly and holding down a senior executive position. There is I suggest more factual information to emerge. Incidentally, has anyone else noted that the victim has yet to comment directly, but a constant stream of information from someone who appears to have inside knowledge is being fed to the Fairfax newspapers. Who is doing this? What are they being paid? What do they have to gain?

I would suspect that nearly as much vitriol and comment has spewed forth as did over the Kahui business.

Yet very little has been said in the media as far as I can see about Derek Fox and his apparent involvement in a domestic violence claim. Fox wants to be an MP and arguably within the wider community was/is of more stature than Veitch. The Maori Party are standing by Fox. Where is the public questioning of this? Especially given past comments by various Maori leaders over the wrong that is domestic violence. Where are the TV and Radio commentators claiming they can no longer work with Fox, where are the screeds of newsprint excoriating Fox?

As I said in my rant yesterday there is a double standard at work here.

IS there no questioning of the Maori Party by politicians because they may need their support under MMP? If that is the case, it is a poor recommendation for our political leadership and for MMP? Is it the case that questioning of anyone about Derek Fox would bring forth cries of racism?

Yesterday the NZ Herald ran a front page story on what may be a very major political story, namely the possibility that Winston Peters, leader of NZ first and Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand, may not have been honest in response to questions from the press earlier this year about whether NZ First received money from Owen Glenn.

This is a major story.

If this was another country, one would expect the media to be all over this, with analytical articles on what it means, the contrast between what Peters has said in the past and what now maybe emerging.

What do we get, a couple of brief mentions in the papers, one item on TVNZ News last night and that is about it.

Oh and some in the blogosphere who appear to think there is no issue as it is Peters and not National, or he only spoke in his capacity as leader of NZ First, he did not lie to Parliament. So that's all right then.

This story has potentially far reaching ramifications, but there is little coverage.

It raises again questions over the honours system, the Electoral Finance Act, Glenn's desire to be Consul to Monaco amongst other matters.

Further, it calls into question the entire democratic system, when a politician whose party may well hold the balance of power after the next election is not called immediately to account on a matter such as this. Leaving one with the unpleasant feeling that Winston Peters position as a potential 'kingmaker' post election is enabling him to dodge the issue. Why are the media so quiet? This matter is of far more import in the scheme of things than Tony Veitch. Their lack of follow up on this is appalling. The lack of comment from Helen Clark is appalling.

Where is the referral of this matter to the Police? Where is the referral of this matter to the Electoral Commission?

The Peters issue strikes to the heart of effective governance. It calls into question all the past statements by Peters on transparency, honesty etc. It raises further questions about Peters treatment of the press. It should cause questions to be raised about his fitness to hold a Ministerial warrant.

The Peters issue emerged on the same day that the Herald ran an article by Fran O'Sullivan on Hager. In this article she made reference to various comments by Don Brash concerning the police investigation into what Brash has always claimed was the theft of emails from his computer. I am not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of what Brash may or may not have done with the Exclusive Brethren, but with the questions he raises over the conduct of the police investigation such as: failure to interview Hager, failure to interview Winston Peters, who publicly claimed to have wads of said emails, excuses such that an APEC meeting meant police resources were stretched.

Where is the media follow-up? Where is the questioning of police to determine if Brash is correct in his assertions? Brash has made in his comments serious allegations. They deserve investigation and resolution.

Yet, Hager can publish a book and articles and to many they immediately assume the status of the Sermon on the Mount or the tablets on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments. They are not to be subject to questioning. Indeed, one is left feeling that, to some, to question Hager's veracity is akin to apostasy and warrants stoning to death.

This disproportionate focus on Veitch, the ignoring of the Derek Fox issues by so many, the lack of focus on Peters and the slavish adulation by many of Hager is what has left me so angry today. The collective media myopia as to what is important is a disgrace.

I am angry, bloody angry and concerned for the future of this country if a matter such as Veitch can displace issues such as the conduct of the Foreign Minister, and the behaviour of the police into a matter which has political ramifications.

I suppose Veitch is an example of bread and circuses for the masses, while the constitutional framework burns around us.

Not only do these issues raise concerns over media myopia, but concerns about the priorities of many and the focus on the lives of so called 'celebrities'. Have we dumbed down ourselves? Or have we let politicians and the media dumb us down?

Scoopit!

Scoopit!

At their web sites both TV3 and TVNZ appear to be taking a 'quiet' line on the Glenn/Peters issue. TVNZ is giving the item greater prominence at present:-

Saturday's New Zealand Herald, reproduces what it says is a private email exchange between the Monaco-based Mr Glenn and his PR agent in Auckland.

It suggests Peters was incorrect when he denied New Zealand First had received a donation from Mr Glenn.

NewstalkZB Political Editor Barry Soper says the emails are quite damning, and Peters needs to come out and clear the air.

But Peters has told reporters he will not be answering their further questions, redirecting enquiries to an also-silent staff. At this stage, he has only issued a brief statement negating the allegation - 'He did not'.

Adam is not really surprised at this tack. Peters has obviously gone to ground.

Adam awaits the suggestion from someone that the emails are a malicious fabrication.

Though that may not wash given Glenn's reported comments from Monaco in the Herald today, though of course he may have either 'mis-spoken' or have been 'mis-understood', or been 'mis-quoted'.

Though Adam assumes that the NZ Herald's legal people will have checked what was printed very, very carefully - given Mr Peters position and prominence.

Adam assumes that there is much, much more to come on this story.

Adam suggests that it would not be unreasonable to think that the police should be asked to look into this matter.

An issue such as this must be seen to be resolved with a complete and transparent investigation. Anything else would be unacceptable.

Scoopit!

Scoopit!

Definitely election year, as see this comment by Anderton, in the DomPost, on whether we should have anti-siphoning laws:-

Mr Anderton told a Film Auckland event last night that a generation of young Kiwis was growing up without watching live cricket and rugby because they could not afford pay television.

Actually Adam doubts that.
This is more about an attitude towards business.

As noted here on more than one occasion, major sporting codes earn money from the sale of TV rights, consequently either they will lose some if not all of that money under 'anti-siphoning' rules - thus potentially causing them to lose players or taxpayers will have to top up the sports directly or via the public broadcaster.

Why?

Sports, professional sports, are a discretionary activity, why should the taxpayer pay for them.

Unless of course one subscribes to a world view where everything flows from the State.

Scoopit!

Scoopit!

Now I have been meaning to post on this item for some time, but had not got around to it. The contrived outrage on some commentators' parts over National's 'policy' announcement on TVNZ caused me to remember this article. The article is by Chris Trotter and was published in the Independent on 26 June 2008. Unfortunately the article does not appear to be on-line, so please excuse the scan quality.

The main part of the article was about Michael Cullen and the economic situation. The last few paragraphs were about public sector broadcasting and very telling paragraphs they were as well.

The first of these sets the tone for those that follow:-

So according to Trotter a left wing government needs to control the media. Thus controlling what people see and hear. On that basis it is surprising that Labour Governments get elected in the UK and Australia for example. Over the years considerable segments of the press media, though owned by capitalists, have supported Labour, including the Murdoch papers.

Adam is surprised that Trotter does not go as far as advocating the licensing of journalists and of newspapers, an approach taken in other bastions of freedom such as Zimbabwe. Trotter does make his thoughts on the role of state media, very clear though with that comment. yet there is more to come.

So Trotter thinks that Cullen, and thus Labour are suffering through a failure to pour not just millions of dollars into RNZ and TVNZ, but hundreds of millions of dollars. Taxpayers money to fund what would be under the criteria defined at the outset a propaganda station for the government.

Some will argue that Trotter does not mean that, he is simply saying TVNZ required more funding to be a public service broadcaster.

Adam disagrees, note what Trotter says in the first extract quoted above, about the need to control the media.

What Trotter overlooks is that Labour has controlled the media in the form of RNZ and TVNZ for the last 9 years. Many would say that both entities have displayed on occasion a tendency to be rather forgiving of the regime.

Trotter then goes on to say:-

So the fact that Espiner challenged Cullen over tax cuts, which to Adam's mind was a legitimate question, would not have happened if TVNZ was a non commercial station. Is Trotter really saying what he appears to be saying that a non-commercial station, funded by the taxpayer, would be a patsy for the government and would not need to do other than parrot the party line.

Adam read this several times and finally came to the conclusion that this was in fact an interpretation which could reasonably be placed upon the paragraph.

By implication Trotter appears to be saying that only nasty capitalists would dream of questioning the regime. What is even more interesting is that it is TVNZ which relatively has had more to spend on news and current affairs, but has squandered it's advantages and has in many respects led the dumbing down of the broadcast media. Also it is TVNZ which has attempted to use 'charter funding' for non charter purposes.

We now come to the final part of Trotter's article. It should be noted that in the earlier sections of the article, Trotter laid much if not all of the blame for low productivity in NZ on the Employment Contracts Act and the failure to promote, through state intervention, the strength of the trade unions. Apart from noting the repeal of the ECA and replacement by the union friendly ERA, Adam will not comment further on that aspect.

The final three paragraphs read:-

Well Adam has noted above that in his view TVNZ squandered it's advantage. Preferring lightweight shows such as Sunday, and low brow documentaries.

Further, Cullen seemd quite happy to extract large dividends from TVNZ year in year out to be put into the Cullen cashbox and frittered away on low quality public spending.

In passing, Adam would suggest that the TVNZ which Paul Norris referred to the other day, must be a different TVNZ from the one which beams into Adam's living room. As for TVNZ not screening broadcasts on ANZAC Day, who cares, most people seem to agree that on that occasion Maori TV does a far better job.

But just look at the penultimate paragraph above. Trotter's vision of public service broadcasting is one of unions, and taxpayer funded media directed at Labour's enemies. So in Trotter's nirvana, publicly funded media are directed to serve the purposes of the regime. By definition anyone with a different view from that of the regime is an enemy, especially if they are business people. because business people are capitalists and as such are by implication evil.

Unions are supposed to be engaged in battle with employers and evil capitalists.

Now Adam knows that quite a lot of people take no notice of Trotter, but he is a columnist on several papers, is a regular on TV and radio shows. Therefore, he may well influence numbers of listeners and readers.

Yet he serves up this Stalinist claptrap and no one in the MSM ever rebuts it.

His vision if ever realised would be an Orwellian State. Perhaps the only saving grace is that Trotter would probably be one of the first sent to any New Zealand gulag.

Unbelievable. This is the 21st century, not the 1930s, not 1951.

Scoopit!

Sir Charles Wheeler, pictured left has died. Adam heard mention of this overnight on Friday.

Adam well remembers listening to, as well as seeing this reporter so many times over the years. A brief extract from the Times obituary follows, but the entire piece repays reading.

The doyen of BBC foreign correspondents, Charles Wheeler earned a permanent niche in television history through his coverage of the Watergate scandal during his years as the corporation’s chief correspondent in the United States. Often ahead of the American press corps, he exploited the contacts he had built up during seven years in Washington to provide the fullest and most comprehensive reporting available in the British media — and more than matching in quality, though not in quantity, that of the American networks.

Looking at various media reports Adam was struck by the degree of public support for the truckers. Why?

These people are not normally the most popular. Indeed, there is a strong argument that their argument is one of special pleading; that may well not stack up on a rational basis.

Adam thinks that Audrey Young may well be right in her Herald blog item:-

I don't think people don't care that much about the truckies' RUCs. But their efforts to clog the cities of New Zealand was a vicarious protest for every other motorist shocked at the price of fuel or householder feeling the strain of rising everything.

It was a bit like that closing scene in the movie Network: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Inconvenienced motorists tooted their support, and onlookers clapped them.

As Audrey Young wrote:-

The Government has offered a logical case of why the RUC should rise and why it could not give a month's notice without defeating the whole purpose of the rise.

The wonder of it is that the Government - in desperate survival mode - didn't delay the rise knowing it would be so politically sensitive.

There are two alternatives: either the Government decided to act out of principle to ensure that all sectors paid their fair share, selflessly disregarding any backlash against Labour; or it did not expect the response it got.

I'll go for the latter.

The Government almost had a brilliant week this week.

Instead it has turned into a shocker.

What Adam thinks happened is they, Labour, had planned a strong weekas Young notes with KiwiRail, an attack on Key, plus as Ms Young notes also a new uni campus in South Auckland and the re-use of the Rugby Ball pavilion for tourism promotion in London, though Adam still thinks that is naff.

What do they get; truckies as heroes of the populace, an attack on Key turning to custard-even if he may be on shaky ground in some respects.

In effect a spectacular own goal on an issue they need not have brought down on their heads.

Why, because as Audrey Young noted above, the transport industry tapped into:-

a vicarious protest for every other motorist shocked at the price of fuel or householder feeling the strain of rising everything.

This coupled with a degree of anger with the Clark government over many, many issues such as perceived arrogance, refusal to listen etc, etc.

Once lit, this response is likely to be very hard to damp down - as reportedly the support for the truckies was nationwide and over 4000 trucks took part.

There is a lot of frustration and anger out there in the community with what is seen as an increasingly out of touch regime.

The government may not rescind the RUC charges, nor on a rational basis should they, but the transport industry may well think they have a win, with Annette King reported as instructing officials to have a look at how RUC is calculated.

Even worse for Labour, the public is likely to perceive the transport industry as having a win, whether or not they in fact have one. Unless Clark rescinds the review. Then she will probably be seen as vindictive.

This whole affair over RUC was political mis-management of the most spectacular sort. It was also totally unnecessary. It further demonstrates that the government, more particularly the inner circle, has lost it's way.

To finish this post Adam thought he would leave readers with a clip from Network, the movie referred to by Audrey Young and for which Peter Finch, as Howard Beale, deservedly won an Oscar. This is the speech when Finch's character first taps the nerve. Watch the reactions of the network executives played by Faye Dunaway and William Holden. Consider what the political strategists in NZ will be doing now.

Finch's character taps into a viewer frustration, which in the end destroys him. Made in 1976 the movie skewered the media then.

What is so interesting is how prescient the movie was. It is arguably more relevant today when we have outfits like Fox News and reality TV than when first made.

Totally tangentially Finch was an Australian actor, often thought of as English. Actors like Finch leave one-dimensional players such as Tom Cruise in the dust.

Watch and enjoy, they just do not make them like this anymore.

The immortal line is:-

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

In a later scene from memory, for Adam first saw this film on it's initial release, the I becomes a We as the audience in a crowd scene chant it as a mantra.

It might well become a mantra for the NZ public. Adam would not be surprised if this phrase did not get picked up and used this year.

When assessing the reliability of polls much depends on the details of the survey. Three points are striking. First, the findings of the three polls are consistent. Roy Morgan, One News Colmar Brunton and Fairfax Media-AC Nielsen found support for National at 52.5%, 55%, and 54% and Labour at 31.5%, 29% and 30% respectively.

Second, the sample sizes for these polls are good: 775 people interviewed in the Morgan poll, 1000 (with 831 probed party supporters) by Colmar Brunton and 1101 by AC Nielsen. When the surveys are projected out to estimate support for the two major parties in the broader population, they have a margin of error, with 95% confidence, of roughly plus or minus 3.6% in the Morgan poll, 3.5% in Colmar Brunton and 3% in AC Nielsen.

Labour says a 95% confidence interval means one poll in 20 may be a "rogue poll". This term is misleading. A 95% confidence interval simply means one poll in 20 may produce a result outside the stated margin of error - and it could be just 0.1% outside. But the chance of all three polls being outside at the same time is more like 1 in 8,000 - statistically possible but highly improbable.

Third, all three are part of a long running series of polls and, crucially, the June results are not out of line with the polling trends.

Later, in conclusion, she sounds a note of caution:-

At this point in the election cycle polls are best used as indicators of voting trends and vote flows. In MMP the source of a vote gain is as important as the gain itself. At the moment National is trending upwards and mainly at Labour's expense, hence claims that a change of government is likely.

But if National starts to fall in the polls, focus turns to where the support goes. If it is to Labour or Labour's likely support parties, then the election will be tighter. The consequences for National are not as dire if the support moves to non-vote. And if it moves to National's allies, then it is not really lost at all.

Finally, polls should be used sparingly. Elections are too often treated as horse races, and polls used by the impatient to predict the winner before the race is even run. The focus now should be on the campaign itself and on providing voters with the information they need to make an informed decision.

As Adam noted earlier well worth reading the complete item.

That is what party leaders are supposed to do - win elections.

Oh, and by the way it is not mandatory to tell your opponents what you are doing, there is no duty of disclosure on these matters. Indeed, discretion and secrecy are often advantageous when battling to win an election.

Now The Hive yesterday carried an item on how the SST might regret having published all that they did, see this Hollow Man II - You Should Read This if You Do the Legal Work for the Sunday Star Times, in which they point out that a number of the allegations made on various blogs, have been refuted and that one Australian 'left'web site has had to apologise and pay compensation.

Adam suspects what has the left frothing with paranoia is that Crosby Textor are successful.

Back to Hager, TV One News had an item this evening from Guyon Espiner where he specifically referred to Crosby Textor, as a firm of dubious advisors, then he said Bill English had obviously learned his lines in reference to English refusing to confirm or deny. Simon Dallow introduced the item by referring to secret advisors.

To Adam's mind the TV ONE item came across as a smear by innuendo, clearly they used a wording that implied something nefarious was afoot, though Espiner made a reference to it all being a trivial matter so why were National sensitive. No doubt so that if queried later a claim of balance and/or inconsequential could be made.

National have a perfect right to be sensitive about who gives them advice, when and of what nature. Crosby Textor if they are working for National have entered into a private, contractual relationship. For National, this is especially so given the campaign of innuendo and smear run against them repeatedly by Labour.

What makes this all so much worse is that the media, especially the SST and the government owned broadcast media in particular, have given oxygen to a story the bare bones of which is that National, perfectly legally, has hired a successful firm of political consultants who advise right of centre parties on running winning political campaigns. So what!

1. TVNZ unable to deal with competition
2. TVNZ a suitable case for derision
3. Sport is critical to national identity
4. TVNZ totally lost the plot
5. More from the TV Wars
6. Dominion Post attacks posturing of TVNZ re Sky

and in particular the attempt by TVNZ to secure benefits for itself through special pleading. Sorry, make that six, Adam had lost count.

Now in today's HoS Bill Ralston turns his attention to this mess. His column begins:-

Never in the field of government inquiries have we heard such self-serving, hypocritical crap reverberate through Parliament. And, for once, it is not coming from politicians.

Over recent weeks, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage's digital broadcasting review has provoked a vicious internecine war between the country's main broadcasters and produced a weird reversal of the usual PR spin the big networks like to put out to the media

Not given to mincing words is he! Then as he says, you have to work out who is after who in this war, for war it is.

First, you have to work out who is who in this crazy, three-sided battle. Basically, TVNZ, TVWorks (TV3 and C4), Freeview (TVNZ and TVWorks) are ganging up on Sky (Sky TV and Prime), although TVWorks is not averse to privately putting the dagger into rival TVNZ's back whenever it possibly can.

Ralston points out how the players are each trying to discredit the other and manipulating facts in wa y that would do the politicians proud.

All sides are crying foul, which has led to a number of ludicrous claims and counterclaims by the spatting networks.

For example, TVNZ claims Sky is unfairly dominant in the New Zealand broadcasting scene. This whinge neatly ignores the fact that TVNZ in its own published strategy document, Inspiring on Every Screen, trumpets that "TVNZ continues to be New Zealand's leading broadcaster". Hello?

Then Sky counter attacks with:-

Sky counters by claiming TVNZ is truly the dominant player, with 46.4 per cent share of viewers in February this year and 18 out of the top-20 rating TV shows.

Sky claims, in fact, TVNZ has the highest percentage share of viewers anywhere in the world and it can find no other broadcaster on the planet that comes near. Normally, this would be TVNZ chest-beating but it sounds truly bizarre coming from a rival.

As Ralston says bizarre. Ineed you might expect in consequence that TVNZ would be in rude financial health. But it gets much more interesting for as Ralston notes:-

It also begs the question, if TVNZ has such a large chunk of the market why does it need so many millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies?

Sky makes the point that TVNZ pulls 65 per cent of the advertising revenue in the market and still gets handouts from the Government.

and as Ralston says later:-

Forget the pathetic attempts at spin all the players are trying to put on the issue. A careful read of the submissions reveals a different and more interesting picture.

From the evidence, it is hard to escape the conclusion that TVNZ should be much more profitable than it is. The fact it can barely scrape a dividend together, and then only after receiving huge Government subsidies, must mean it is grossly inefficient.

Well Adam has read elsewhere that TV3 News operates more efficiently and effectively, that TV3 staffing levels and productivity are more effective than TVNZ.

Another picture that emerges is that TV3 is a slow starter in the digital race and lacks a real vision of where it is going in the new "wired" era.

Sky, for all its revenue, is hugely capital intensive and is not necessarily the goldmine its competitors paint it to be because it has to constantly keep upping its technology to keep ahead in the market - a fact its shareholders seem to have realised, judging by its share price.

Interesting given that both Sky and TV3 are privately owned - and examples of risk taking business not propped up by the taxpayer dollar. Sky risked private capital and continues to so do. Unlike TVNZ.

Ralston then asks why the Government has opened up this can of worms.

Adam suspects that initially it was thought that the Government could score points by attacking Sky through the surrogates of TVNZ and TV3.

However, what is now more likely to happen is that the manifest inefficiency of TVNZ is more likely to be exposed along with it's like of direction, as indeed was pointed out in earlier editorials in the main newspapers.

Further, taxpayers may well ask why put all this money into Freeview just to attack a successful private business, when greater audience share would have been available by putting TV6 and TV7 on the Sky network. Indeed, given technology advances, it could well be the case that in 5 years or less even, the major part of the audience may well source programmes over the internet, delivered via high speed broadband, thus rendering free to air, satellite and cable as such very out of date.

Overall, if this was a political move it was probably a dumb one, especially as Adam has never noted a shortage of Sky and Freeview antennae in so called poorer neighbourhoods.

Yet again he thinks the regime exposed itself to attack on it's attitude towards private enterprise.

These incidents cause Adam to wonder if despite the work done on trade by Phil Goff, if some in this government really do believe in an economy driven by successful private enterprise, or is it that they see media control as a pre-requisite for extending political control. On that point Adam will be posting further in the next few days.

The article concludes:-

There is clearly an eccentric, playful streak to Marsh. Simon Williams, her co-star in Upstairs, Downstairs, says that she carries a herb rack everywhere. She promptly dismisses the notion: “Of course I don’t carry a rack . . . but I might take a chilli out of my bag if I don’t like the food in a restaurant.”

Un'amicizia, quella fra Gates e Ballmer, che comincia al college dove quest'ultimo è manager della squadra di football e si impegna nel giornale universitario "Harvard Crimson". Nel 1977 ottiene la laurea in matematica ed economia.
I due anni successivi li passa lavorando per Procter & Gamble, dove conosce Jeffrey R. Immelt, l'attuale amministratore delegato di General Electric, una delle più importanti multinazionali americane specializzate in tecnologie e servizi. L'11 giugno 1980 entra in Microsoft col compito di coordinare alcune divisioni, fra cui quella per lo sviluppo del sistema operativo e quella delle vendite. Vent'anni dopo, nel 2000, è nominato amministratore delegato della Microsoft. In quell'occasione Bill Gates si preoccupa di mantenere il controllo esclusivamente sulla cosiddetta "visione tecnologica". L'era Gates sta per tramontare, ma ci vorranno ancora otto anni perché Ballmer possa vedere il suo nome sulla porta dell'ufficio che per oltre trent'anni è stata del fondatore di Microsoft.

Il "cattivo ragazzo" si fa strada. Il "Bad boy" di casa Microsoft - così lo definisce la biografia non autorizzata su Ballmer uscita nel 2003 per mano di Fredric Alan Maxwell - si fa notare dalla pubblica opinione da subito. Per i suoi modi irruenti, decisi, per nulla diplomatici. Con quella sua aria da venditore porta a porta che incita gli impiegati a mettercela tutta, a non demordere mai. Come se non bastasse essere i numeri uno fra le software house mondiali.

La diffusione di sistemi operativi Microsoft che sfiora il 90% mondiale non è sufficiente. Quel 10% sembra impensierire, e anzi, fa andare su tutte le furie il "cattivo ragazzo". L'avanzata di Apple lo preoccupa, la presenza di un altro sistema operativo alternativo aperto - GNU/Linux - gli manda letteralmente il sangue al cervello, tanto da fargli dichiarare pubblicamente nel 2001: "Linux è un cancro che aggredisce il senso della proprietà intellettuale d'ogni cosa che tocca.".

L'attuale numero uno di Microsoft ce ne ha per tutti. Lancia accuse "a ruota libera" di comunismo su chi ha intenzione di sovvertire quello che per lui è il principio sacrosanto dell'economia: l'importante è il fine, non i mezzi. E il fine è vendere il più possibile.

Si prende gioco di tutti, e tutti si prendono gioco di lui. Un esempio? L'exploit sul palcoscenico di una convention, dove arringa ai dipendenti Microsoft, saltellando da una parte all'altra per dieci minuti, in preda a un'eccitazione non comune, e di cui è stato diffuso online il video col titolo "La danza del ragazzo scimmia" (Dance Monkeyboy). Più di recente è stato bersaglio di un lancio di uova, da parte di uno studente ungherese, in occasione di una conferenza di Ballmer. Ma non basta. Taccia come "ridicolo" il nuovo gioiello di casa Apple, l'iPhone, criticandolo per il prezzo esorbitante con cui è stato messo in commercio. E infine conduce personalmente un'estenuante braccio di ferro con Jerry Yang, fondatore e ad di Yahoo!, per l'acquisto del secondo motore di ricerca più importante al mondo. Ma qui, apparentemente, fallisce. Lascia il tavolo da gioco, ritira l'offerta, e punta su una partnership più soft che però non arriverà mai.

Detesta apertamente, attacca frontalmente. Fra gli incubi peggiori di Steve Ballmer un posto d'onore spetta a Eric Schmidt, amministratore di Google, e vecchia conoscenza di Microsoft, da quando Schmidt era prima a capo di Sun Microsystems e poi di Novell, principali concorrenti di Seattle. Tanto da arrivare agli insulti quando alcune voci si rincorrono circa a un possibile passaggio di un importante manager Microsoft verso Mountain View.

Questo è Steve Ballmer, padre svizzero e madre americana - cittadino onorario della città di Losanna, in Svizzera - tre figli, 52 anni compiuti lo scorso 24 marzo. Una sorta di Joseph McCarthy dei nostri tempi, che concepisce la vita come una lotta fra il bene il male, senza mezze misure, o sfumature. Che si scalda con la facilità di un cerino in un incendio. Che quando parla, urla. Per il quale il comunismo (si legga: Linux & Co) è il male supremo, da debellare. E pensare che il nonno vive a Minsk, in Bielorussia, dove Ballmer nel 2007 ha voluto fare una visita non ufficiale.

Al 44° posto fra i più ricchi al mondo. Nel 2007 Ballmer era al 31° posto nella classifica degli uomini più ricchi al mondo. Nel 2008 scende al 44°. A certificarlo è la rivista Forbes che ne stima il patrimonio in 15 miliardi di dollari. Una fortuna accumulata grazie alle stock option ricevute come dipendente Microsoft. E che appena ha potuto, nel 2003, ha incassato, ridisegnando successivamente il programma che gestiva l'assegnazione di azioni ai dipendenti del colosso di Seattle.

Ora, il cattivo ragazzo del software si trova finalmente al potere. Coi suoi pregi e suoi difetti, e un ultimo ostacolo: Bill Gates, l'unico che separa Ballmer dalla sua apparente mania di onnipotenza. Tanto che è lo stesso Ballmer a mettere subito le cose in chiaro in un'intervista recente al Wall Street Journal: "Non avrò bisogno di lui (di Bill Gates, ndr.) per niente. Questo è sicuro. Usarlo sì, aver bisogno di lui, no." Patti chiari - è il caso di dirlo - e amicizia lunga.

One last thing: Is it just me, or does John Barrowman indeed have some resemblence with Tom Cruise? That was at least my first thought when he first appeared in this episode. It freaked me out a little, because I don't really like Tom Cruise, not anymore at least. I lost that impression pretty fast, because Captain Jack was such a cool character, but still... I just didn't expected that kind of first impression :-)

The interactive graphic revealed that 150,000 glasses of Pimms and 28,000 kilos of strawberries are consumed during the tournament along with 100,000 pints of beer. Now some how, Adam has never thought of Wimbledon as a beer venue. The graphic has a horde of other statistics as well.

<a
Graphic shows the 3 polls recently released and the average of all three.

A long way to go to the election and much can still happen, but it does not look good for Labour at present, nor for Winston unless he can win Tauranga.

The polls will repay further analysis.

Scoopit!

Jon Stewart mocks media treatment of Barack Obama in this video clip.

Picked up via the Huffington Post, Stewart uses real clips to demonstrate

On Monday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart mocked the media's willingness to peddle insane rumors about Barack Obama — and their tendency to blame the rumor-mongering on internet sites. Calling it "Baracknophobia," Stewart showed clips of anchor and pundits from all three cable networks repeating baseless rumors (Muslim, plagiarist, sexist, etc.) about Barack Obama (and his wife Michelle).

The clip is amusing, but highlights just how the media, in the USA, treats some issues.

Scoopit!

ROMA - Un giro di vite destinato a far discutere. Nicolas Sarkozy ha dichiarato guerra al peer to peer, lo scambio illegale di file in rete, e nonostante le raccomandazioni del Parlamento Europeo va avanti per la sua strada. Il governo transalpino ha presentato qualche giorno fa un progetto di legge che prevede il taglio della connessione internet a chi scambia file online illegalmente. Non solo, i nomi dei trasgressori verranno pubblicati in Rete, in una sorta di "cyber-gogna". Per evitare che gli internauti scoperti cambino semplicemente provider e ricomincino con il file sharing.

La norma. Il provvedimento che già sta scatenando polemiche, prevede l'istituzione di una specifica autorità. L'organismo (Hadopi) sarà formato da magistrati e funzionari che decideranno le sanzioni. Chi viene scoperto a scambiare illegalmente opere cinematografiche e musicali, riceverà fino a due lettere di avvertimento da parte del proprio provider. In caso di recidiva l'autorità gli comminerà la sospensione. Il "taglio" della connessione avrà una durata da tre mesi a un anno e potrà essere ridotto, qualora l'internauta accettasse di pagara una multa. Il registro dei "rei" verrà pubblicato online, per evitare che la norma possa essere aggirata cambiando provider.

Le ragioni del governo. Il progetto di legge ha subito richiamato l'attenzione del Parlamento europeo, che qualche mese fa, quando erano trapelate le prime indiscrezioni, aveva chiesto agli Stati dell'Unione di non tagliare la connessione internet ai "pirati" del web. Il governo transalpino non ha ascoltato questa raccomandazione. Anche per l'ostinazione del presidente francese, che ha dichiarato: "Internet non può essere una zona senza leggi". D'accordo con lui, la firmataria del provvedimento, il ministro della Cultura, Christine Albanel, secondo la quale la legge potrà ridurre gli atti di pirateria tra il 70 e l'80%.

Altri Paesi dopo la Francia? Una funzione "pedagogica" più che repressiva secondo il governo. "Il progetto di legge risponde", spiega il ministro "a una situazione di urgenza, il furto di opere penalizza fortemente l'economia del settore culturale". Si tratta comunque, spiega Albanel, di "una norma equilibrata, che sarà accompagnata da un aumento dell'offerta legale". La misura adottata dal governo francese potrebbe essere utilizzata anche da altri paesi. Regno Unito, Svizzera e Belgio stanno studiando provvedimenti simili.

(18 giugno 2008)

Scoopit!

Earlier today Adam posted about Winston Peters, NZ First and his generosity with our money, this was on learning that the Cystic Fibrosis Association had returned the NZ First 'donation''.

Adam had thought that would be the end of the matter, but no. Peters seems to think he can gain political advantage by pursuing the issue of the return and alleging 'dirty deeds'.

Winston Peters according to this item on the NZ Herald web site thinks that 'someone' got at the CEO and others at the Cystic Fibrosis Association.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters thinks someone influenced a charity to return a donation it asked for and thanked him for.

NZ First gave the Cystic Fibrosis Association $10,000, part of the $158,000 it owed Parliamentary Services for wrongful election campaign spending in 2005.

It insists the spending was given prior clearance and won't pay it back.

Every other party pinged by the Auditor General has either paid back or is paying back the money.

Yet to Adam it appears that by saying he will donate the money to charity Peters is admitting that NZ First is not entitled to the money. SO why does he not just close down the matter and pay it back.

Mr Peters said on Sunday it had all been given to "worthy causes" he did not identify.

The association's chief executive, Kate Russell, announced last night it had returned the donation because it wasn't sure the party had the right to give the money to charities. Though, watching the TV news, Ms Russell does appear to have been in two minds about this issue for some time now.

Well many people think that Winston Peters behaviour in this matter is the questionable aspect. He just cannot seem to accept that people do not agree with what he is doing.

Peters is quoted as follows:-

"The real issue is who got to them," he said.

"It's a very sad day when people put petty politics ahead of human interest."

He refused to say who he thought had "got to" the association and told reporters to find out for themselves.

Well Winston is letting his paranoia show again.

The real issue is who got to them," he said.

Why should anyone have got to the charity.

Perhaps on consideration the board realised that accepting such a donation was not in the best interest of the charity, whatever the management may have thought.

They may well have been mindful of the old saying that:-

"He who sups with the Devil should have a long spoon"

otherwise they may become tainted by association.

Another 'funny' part of Peters comment was:-

"It's a very sad day when people put petty politics ahead of human interest."

This from Winston First.

Good heavens Adam cannot see how the man managed to say this with a straight face.

Absolutely outrageous comment, from a man who is widely seen to put his interests always to the fore, not unbelievable, because Peters clearly thinks no one sees the manifest inconsistencies and absurdities in his utterances.

The icing on the cake was the final element in the whole quote:-

He refused to say who he thought had "got to" the association and told reporters to find out for themselves.

Now that really does take the cake. Because only on Sunday Peters said on TVNZs' Agenda programme in response to questioning on this matter by Guyon Espiner, and Adam quotes from the transcript:-

GUYON Okay will the public get to know who those charities are?
WINSTON Look I wrote to the Speaker with the full list and the letters of introduction to those charities, if the Speaker wants you to find out that’s fine but I do not think that they should become the victims of snooping prying media interest.

So it is OK by Winston for reporters to research and establish the facts, if the objective suits Winston, but if anybody wants to know about what he is doing then it is a case of snooping prying media interest.

Peters and NZ First are diverting money which morally and ethically is taxpayer funding which should be returned to Parliamentary Services.

Scoopit!

The biggest concern is the American Media. It is not so much that the print media has let us down, but the more dangerous and much popular TV/cable Media, that should be a cause of great concern. Look around all the networks, from CNN to NBC, all the way to Fox News, CBS, ABC and others. None have a voice of authority and the intellect to honestly inform people. You have Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren at Fox News, touting the Republican propaganda on the right. The only exception being Neil Cavuto, but then he is not political. On the flip side we have Tom Brokaw, Late Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, Keith Obermann, John Seigenthaler, Dan Abrams, Lester Holt, David Gregory, Joe Scarborough, Matt Lauer, Andrea Mitchell and many more at NBC Networks, peddling their Liberal-Agenda and pretending to be even-handed. It is a sad situation. CNN is no better. Where do we go for some honest reporting?