Rod Oram doesn’t think that the proposed NZ media merger of NZME and Fairfax is a well thought out way to increase advertising revenue. He is concerned that it is more about convenience, taking away competition and reducing costs.
Bob Jones is a national treasure and since he got the pip with the NZ Herald has been writing at NBR.
His latest column continues the theme of previous weeks of lambasting useless journalists, this week it is Bernard Hickey and Rod Oram.
He discusses his pet hates about real estate writers and advertisements, in particular a comment by Sally Lindsay about the port having a “footprint”.
I imagine many other NBR readers also on reading that “footprint” outrage like me, collapsed into a coma.
An hour later I’d recovered enough to pull myself up on to my bed where after a further hour recovering I braved deeper into that NBR issue. Thank God I did so while lying on my bed, or more specifically, thank you Sally for putting me there, for reading further on I came to an article that had I been standing, might have killed me with shock. Even today I’m still a bit twitchy and having to take calming-down pills every hour. For, unbelievably, Bernard Hickey had created an all-time first and had contributed a positive article, its contents irrelevant to my point.
About four years ago I wrote a NZ Herald column urging Bernard and Rod Oram, now that pre-frontal lobotomies are discredited, to try a more time proven cheering-up remedy, and take on a mistress. Judging by his new happy-faced photo over his article, plus its hitherto unprecedented positive tone, it’s clear that like all converts, whether religious, political or what have you, Bernard has taken things to extremes and instead of following my moderate advice, has instead created a harem.
Doug Sellman just doesn’t get it.
He has had a good long whinge in the Sunday Star-Times today.
He also gives Rod Oram a good old reach around, echoing Oram’s claims that I am somehow responsible for suppression freedom of expression when it is him who is seeking to have me, and Carrick Graham and now Katherine Rich silenced.
The fools should really look in the mirror.
But since he keeps on claiming that I am trying to suppress his idea we really should look at those ideas that he is pushing. Then you can see why it is that I push back against idiots like Doug Sellman and the stupid taxpayer funded ideas that they peddle.
And continue to run them we will, especially when idiots like Doug Sellman run off at the mouth claiming:
- That thefts of hand sanitiser at hospitals are because of “excessive alcohol marketing”
- That supermarket owners are ‘the biggest drug dealers in IIam’ and ‘New World supermarkets…are probably the single biggest drug dealers in New Zealand’.
- That Elmgrove School are terrible for selling beers to a few dads, and compares it to the sale of ecstasy.
- That ‘the ethanol in alcohol is a group one carcinogen like asbestos’ and ‘…a substance more intoxicating than heroin, more carcinogenic than ecstasy and more aggressigenic than LSD’.Even lifestyle and travel blogger David Farrar highlight’s Sellman’s alarmist comments
- That Christ’s College is perpetuating New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture by giving senior students a bottle-opener keyring at the school ball. Read more »
According to Rod Oram I am responsible for the ending of society and what it could have been because I call crusading scientists to account.
This Fabian socialist ignores the fact ( while he crusades on Nicky Hager’s behalf ) that a journalist was hacked and crimes were committed by the very people he is now crying a river of tears for.
He claims that I am trying to suppress debate.
Is free and rigorous debate increasingly suppressed in New Zealand?
No, says, John Roughan, John Key’s biographer and a New Zealand Herald editorial writer, in his article available at http://bit.ly/Roughan
Yes, says, Nicky Hager, investigative journalist. He laid out chapter and verse in a recent article in the UK’s Guardian (http://bit.ly/Hager), as he did in his book Dirty Politics. His piece triggered Roughan’s blistering response.
I say yes. Suppression of evidence, ideas and debate, in ways subtle and now increasingly brutal, is my experience as a business journalist in New Zealand. It is no consolation we are just a micro example of an accelerating trend worldwide.
Far from suppressing debate I am actually encouraging it. I am actually providing the other side of the debate. In order to have a debate one must have two sides, but all too often the Orams of this world and the so-called researchers he is defending don’t want a debate. They want their story only told…and when you push back against them they cry out that you are trying to suppress them.
The whole premise behind ‘Dirty Politics’, as stated by the hacker and his mouthpiece Nicky Hager was to “shut down” the network of people who were challenging their pals. Yes they used the words “shut down”. In other words it is they who have decided that the debate must be suppressed, that illegal means, foul means, criminal means must be used to justify the ends.
Let me give you two examples from my work last week. At the Population Health Congress very good experts from many science and other professional disciplines were wrestling with the escalating issue of childhood obesity, alcoholism, and many other extremely complex societal issues.
But many of them know they are taking great professional and personal risks to do this critical work. They are painfully aware of the ruthless way Cameron Slater, Carrick Graham and others have tried to destroy Prof Doug Sellman, director of the University of Otago’s National Addiction Centre.
The facts of their despicable acts were laid bare in Dirty Politics. It was just one of many such campaigns they continue to run.
Len Brown seems to be so desperate to talk about anything else aside from the Council’s black budget that he’s now thinking about banning sugary drinks.
I’ve posted about Auckland Council’s perilous state of its finances, as has Len Brown’s former favourite journalist Bernard Orsman who talked about ‘how city budget hit crunch point’.
With Len not keen on talking to Bernard, his PR team have instead raced out to find diversions to take Aucklanders’ attention off his inability to deliver his promised pet projects. If it wasn’t Waterfront Auckland’s clumsy attempt at spending millions on Queens Wharf, it was wheeling out Rod Oram to encourage Len to keep on spending up big. Read more »
One of the left’s biggest apologists, Rod Oram, has penned an article which basically forgives and encourages Len to borrow and spend and particularly for his train set and then at the end of the articles we find Oram is on the payroll.
So he gets hired by the ratepayers and the coincidently uses his weekly column to write nice things about his paymaster.
Ratepayers should be asking what this guy is paid and Fairfax should never have accepted the column and asked him to write about something else, in fact Fairfax should get a proper business columnist who actually knows something about business.
The fight is on for the future of Auckland. The choice is: a healthy one driven by ambition, or a dysfunctional one dragged down by a penny-pinching mentality.
The issue has come starkly to a head with the deliberations over the council’s 10-year budget. The decisions the council will make over coming months, guided by public opinion, will set Auckland’s course for years to come.
So far the pessimists have dominated the debate with their wildly inaccurate and irresponsible claims that the council’s finances are shambolic. Only savage budget cuts can save it, they say.
To set the record straight:
The council runs a budget surplus on operating expenses. In 2012/13 it was $246m.
Rates provide only half the revenues for the council’s $3 billion annual budget. The rest come from a variety of sources. Read more »
Things are getting tough for Len Brown. He has literally become a man alone.
His Labour pals have carded him, no one invites him to anything and he is now having to resort to stage-managed appearances where he can lap for his council funded limousine into a building for a function and back again without having to face the public.
Now even lefty commentators are abandoning him and his dreams.
Rod Oram says that Len’s waterfront plans won’t work. Firstly he suggests that Auckland become more globalised…I nearly fell off my chair when I read it.
So, how might Auckland fulfil its ambitions? The goals are right. The region needs to be far more deeply linked with the global economy. Currently only 9 per cent of Auckland’s economy has anything to do with the rest of the world. The vast bulk of activity is generated from serving the needs of its population, and the wider country.
To develop such engagement, Auckland needs to become very good at attracting interest and investment from overseas businesses, while many more Auckland businesses must learn how to earn a living internationally, not just in this tiny domestic market. But Auckland will develop these two powerful economic drivers only if it locks on to the seismic economic and social shifts in the world. The most potent of all is the economic and environmental sustainability of urban areas. Read more »
There is a great deal of press regarding the DCD milk scandal…but who is to blame?
Of course it is easy to blame the useless repeaters intent on massive headlines…which of course I did. But the real root of the issue lies with smelly hippies and the green taliban.
They have been intent on demanding our farmers be clean and green…look at this list of Labour and Green luminaries that implored the use of this ‘technology’
The Labour Party:
“We have been gratified by the support we have received for Eco-n from the Government with the very positive visit by the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jim Anderton.
Mr Anderton’s visit was followed by a visit from Associate Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor.”
and; Read more »
Rod Oram takes time out from lecturing at the Young Labour Summer School and gets right up Kim Dotcom and his fanciful claims in the Sunday Star Times, expect David Fisher to start running a twitter attack against him in short order….or at the very least to spout forth arguments ion Kim’s behalf.
Dangerously for us, however, Kim Dotcom has plunged into this gap. The man and his business models are the absolute antithesis of what the internet and this country need.
He dangles a glittering prospect others have offered before: he says we could generate jobs, wealth and taxes if we turned ourselves into one of the world’s great data storage sites. After all, we have abundant, cheap and renewable electricity to power the servers. All we’d need is bigger cables to connect us with the world and a change of laws to make us the Switzerland of data secrecy.
He claims his new services, if they were based here, would within three years generate more traffic than the rest of NZ online activity combined. But everything is wrong about this proposition, from the economics to the practicality and morality.
So far Oram is the only media person to get up Kim Dotcom and called him on his bullshit, he goes further. Read more »
Matthew Hooton examines the lunacy of Labour and the Greens:
Labour, the Greens and their cheerleaders are delirious about work by staffers at the International Monetary Fund.
Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy was written in 2010 by French and Italian nationals Olivier Blanchard, Giovanni De’Ariccia and Paolo Mauro. Professor Blanchard has followed it up with Monetary Policy in the Wake of the Crisis.
The work is being cited by Labour’s David Parker and the Green’s Russel Norman as justifying all sorts of nonsense, including Dr Norman’s loony idea of printing money despite the official cash rate being above zero.
Left-wing cheerleaders Selwyn Pallett [sic], John Walley and Rod Oram have picked up the theme at events like the EPMU’s “crisis” summit.
Profound changes, we’re told, are needed to New Zealand’s monetary and wider economic policy. Funnily enough, their proposals would transfer wealth to Mr Pallett [sic] and Mr Walley from savers, consumers, taxpayers and the EPMU’s lower-paid workers.
Selwyn Pellett just absolutely loves corporate welfare.
On the role of government, Professor Blanchard argues for much tighter fiscal policy in good times, saying that when economic growth returns, as it has in New Zealand, countries must reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios rather than increase spending or cut tax.
The left has been strangely silent about that.
He also thinks legislators should consider giving central banks additional monetary tools, a debate which is not new. Even Don Brash has floated ideas such as the Reserve Bank being able to impose a mortgage rate levy, or vary GST or petrol taxes at the margins.
Professor Blanchard is particularly keen to debate how monetary and regulatory policy could be better combined. In leading that debate, he acknowledges the risk that too many tools and too many interventions could be distortionary and harmful.
He worries that, if central banks started being in charge of too many instruments, they would then be responsible for picking favourites among different sectors of the economy (say, Mr Pallett [sic] and Mr Walley over savers and consumers).
That, in turn, would raise questions of whether or not they could or should continue to be independent from politicians.
Labour politicians are even signalling that they want control over even private companies like Fisher & Paykel and a say over their own affairs when seeking capital or even to sell.