Monday, 10 September 2007


It's telling, isn't it, that when the media belatedly discover Commisar Kiro's plan to nationalise NZ's children, they prefer to spend their time instead asking questions about a bloke who plays in the parliamentary rugby team. Does this say everything we need to know about NZ's media?


  1. The Perfect Man10 Sep 2007, 18:02:00

    Very telling. But not telling anything new as you say.
    Advertising by private businesses funds most all media and yet reporters and editors are virtually all pink. Very ironic. Gits.

  2. Wrong. Mainstream media in NZ get most advertising revenue from Govt & SOEs

  3. Yes, but that is not the reason. It is a complete lack of any serious intellectual grounding beyond fawning over funny mockumentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11. You only need to talk to a few of them to see how they are largely average undergraduates.

    Britain may, by and large, be more statist than NZ, and also have plenty of fools who can parallel NZ reporters - but it DOES have enough newspapers that if you read more than 1 regularly you can find some absolute brilliance every single day. That brilliance is spread across the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Observer and FT, even the Independent at times.

  4. The discredited, fact-free hysterical commentary about the anti-smacking bill (kids being dragged screaming into the night etc) is coming back to bite; and is another reason why this issue may not get a lot of traction with the media and public.

    The phrase 'hoist with your own petard' comes to mind.

  5. One of the facts pointed out about the anti-smacking law was that it was the thin end of a wedge of which Kiro's compulsory monitoring is a larger part.

    That's a fact.

    And isn't it great how the Bradford/Key anti-smacking bill has stopped child abuse as its promoters such as yourself, Ruth, so claimed.

    The latest reported story which the Bradford/Key bill failed to stop appears here today:

    A woman accused of sexually violating her six-year-old son faced trial in Wellington District Court today...

    She is alleged to have performed oral sex on her six-year-old son and assaulted him and her nine-year-old son with a piece of timber...

    So as regards disregard for facts, you've demonstrated again, Ruth, why you aren't welcome here.


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Construct an argument, not a feud--build a mountain, not a molehill.
Spam will be removed , unless it's been asked for.
(Comment moderation is currently being reluctantly applied...)