Mike Hosking writes about his supposed bias and completely destroys Cunliffe’s claims.
Right, where to start?
Last time I wrote in this esteemed organ, I proffered an idea or two as to why Labour wasn’t exactly breathing down National’s neck.
This drew a fair amount of feedback which is good, because if it didn’t, I’d be wondering why I’m even bothering to write these given I’ve got quite a bit of work on my plate these days and don’t really need extra.
One of the bits of feedback came from a Dr Michael Cullen, who for a period had his finger in the pie of running this place.
He made a good point, but I believe he also made a mistake in his reply.
The good point was the acceptance that people like me have opinions and should offer them, and when it comes to political debate this is no bad thing.
He is among an increasingly large number of people these days, if in fact not the majority, who have moved with the times and realise people who present the news often do so with accompanying commentary.
His mistake, in my view, was to then compare my role or job to that of Shane Taurima, and wonder what the difference was.
It’s important to point out here that I think Mr Cullen was suggesting I might have a certain established stance on various political matters, therefore assumptions are made on where I’m coming from.
Others have gone on in recent weeks to call that bias, but more on that in a moment.
In Cullen comparing what I do and its ensuing transparency to what Taurima did, is to shoot yourself in the foot.
What Taurima did was belong to a political party, stand for that party, raise money for that party and use taxpayer-funded facilities to do that fundraising, knowing it was explicitly against the rules and all the while running a journalistic unit that claimed neutrality.
In my opinion, Taurima was a moron.