Feel the tears of impotent rage from Felix Marwick, upset that he isn’t one of those shaping opinion in election year.
Thereâs nothing quite like an election campaign for getting tempers up, emotions raised, and judgements lowered. All of a sudden anything becomes a tool for political gain. This is something we all need to bear in mind over the next five and a half weeks before the election.
Those with vested political interests will scheme and manipulate in almost any way that suits their purposes.Â Weâre already seeing it happen.
Consider the manufactured outrage weâve already seen over a couple of incidents. FirstlyÂ the âf**k John Keyâ chant recorded at an Internet Mana rally. This is not necessarily the degradation of society and an all time low in politics that some would have us believe. Believe it or not itâs actually not all that unusual for those of the younger generation to use coarse language about their political leaders. Itâs been happening for generations. I recall chasing the then Tertiary Education Minister Lockwood Smith around Canterbury University campus back in the 1990s. The language we used was not exactly complimentary and was generally similarly used on any visiting government minister. Just ask Ruth Richardson how she was treated by protestors after her âmother of all Budgetsâ.
Abuse of politicians isnât respectful, but itâs not unusual.
What is interesting; however, are those who point to the incident as some sort of political Armageddon and a sign of dirty politics of the left. Iâm really not convinced that Cameron Slater can claim any moral high ground here, nor can David Farrar. Itâs really a bit rich for someone who ran a billboard campaign against the Electoral Finance Act that compared then Prime Minister Helen Clark to totalitarian leaders to be drawing comparisons between the Internet Party, Dotcom, and Hitler. Dotcom may be many things (and some of them reasonably unsavoury) but to draw parallels between him and one of the most reviled figures of the 20thÂ century is simply ludicrous.
No it isn’t ludicrous Felix, those billboards were legitimate political debate around an issue, the erosion of freedom of speech by a implementation of a draconian law enacted by a morally corrupt government sensitive to criticism. It was a policy debate not a ranty chant from a Fat German Crook. Clark was acting like a totalitarian, and so she got compared to other dictators.
Bear in mind the footage that raised so much ire had been floating around for at least a fortnight and had been previously reported on. Where was the outrage and criticism then? Or was it a deliberate strategy to draw attention away from the other hot story of the day – foreign ownership of New Zealand land?
It was floating around for weeks, but the mainstream media ignored it, swept it under the carpet, pretending desperately that it wasn’t a story. Unfortunately it was. The traditional filters from the media are now gone. News is what people think is news not what tired journalists in the Press Galley think is news. Â Read more »