Monday, 5 March 2007

Sunday Star Drek

Has the Sunday Star Times anything going for it?

This is the 'newspaper' that in recent times splashed spectacularly across its front page the stories of Tariana Turia's bugging by the SIS (she wasn't), loudly compared Don Brash to racist Pauline Hanson (he isn't), and broke the news that conspiracy specialist Ian Wishart was about to publish [gasp] 'news' about Helen Clark's husband (he didn't). None of these 'scoops' were out of character, and nor did the editor seem at all chastened by the fact that her front page and the truth apparently dwelt in different counties.

The lesson seems to be that if it's in the Sunday Star Times, particularly anywhere near the front page, then don't believe a word.

Yesterday's Focus puff piece (seemingly written and photographed by Clint Rickards' press agent) was just another piece of drek to add to the pile, and almost the only part of last weekend's offering that didn't get a well deserved going over by Paul at The Fundy Post, who seems to have the same opinion of the back pages of the rag as I do about the front [Hat tip Russell].

That the SST's editor considers Michael Laws' opinion as worth publishing is just one more reason to read something else, anything else, on a Sunday.


  1. PC said...
    ...anything else, on a Sunday?

    Yes, at the Winter Garden, Auckland Domain from 2pm to 6pm, free Jazz music every week might be a good alternative.

  2. To be fair, PC, watching Mme. Antoinette Beck lecture anyone else on ethics and integrity in public life is black comedy of the highest order.

    The again, settling down to Prime's Star Trek marathon is more useful way to spend your day than reading the Smear-Whines.

    And isn't it repulsive watching Rickards posing with his daughter, like a fashionista toting this season's 'it' bag? It was uncomfortably like seeing Donna Awatere-Huata - another victimiser trying to spin their way into victim hood - after a bothched sex change conducted in a tatoo parlour.

  3. Are we sure that there was no truth to Michael Laws' article? I'm not for a minute saying that Clint Rickards is anything other that a total scum-bag, however I do think that it would have been very difficult to convict the scum with the evidence presented during the trial.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.