Re comments above on how we all react to things, it’s interesting isn’t it. ‘Twas Rob Muldoon that motivated me into political activism (though the action came some many years after the impulse, as I was away living in Thatcher’s England). And I must admit that reading KB (which I do about once a month or so) certainly does inspire me to work harder for Labour.

the german research is the most advanced on this question, they call it the “Chancellor Effect” in terms of the media advantage of the inbumbent.

in recent elections though, this effect seems to have reversed, such that the extra scrutiny incumbents receive from the media works against them, while conversely Oppositions can spout a lot of pie-in-the-sky without their positions being carefully evaluated.

Just a general observation, it does amuse me that to Kiwiblog the meeja are leftwing pinko commie lickspittle, while to Kiwiblogblog they are more and more starting to appear as reactionary right-wing apologists. If they’re pissing off both camps, maybe they’re doing something right?”

hey wheronui, you would think so but no this is a case where the evidence supports the left. if we take New Zealand as a specific example

firstly virtually all of our media is commercially owned or, if owned by the state, it is run as a crown owned company. this means that the first priority of virtually all our mainstream media is to return a profit to their shareholders, the way they make money is through advertising hence their second priority is advertisers. the interests of advertisers are served better by targeting the largest audience and the audience with the most disposable money (consider the court case where maori tv was born. fascinating stuff). this is more likely to favour a conservative audience and a not minority groups.

secondly a majority of media is owned by companies that have cross market shares (own several papers or even tele and radio etc) or even shares in totally unrelated business (in america the five big media companies also own shares in oil, car companies, white ware etc) this means that media is more responsive to positions that support their owners and shareholders and these positions are generally right wing business friendly ideals. examples of this include this quote from media mogul O’Reily about free market NZ:

“Looking at and participating in the miracle of New Zealand in commerce, I have no doubt whatsoever that the next century will confirm what we already know – that New Zealand has found the economic way of fairness and transparency and a real return on capital; and that because of this, many others are in the process of finding the way to invest in this extraordinary country” read the rest of Rosenberg’s article on foreign media ownership for context
http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Miscellaneous/mediaown.pdf

thirdly our media is largely owned by overseas media companies who will suffer little or no cultural or social effects from decisions made by our representatives- their quality of life will not alter with our public policy. thus their main concern is the profit they gain from our country and their competitiveness drives other outlets that may be new zealand owned.

lastly owners do have editorial impact on their media- nz doesn’t have as many documented examples as america but see rosenbergs article for a couple. owners have been known to fire editors that challenge their viewpoint or threaten their business interests or to only hire those that share similar ideas. they also create a form of unspoken pressure where workers know what is required of them and deliver a conservative product rather than producing material that may rile shareholders.

Of course you are correct: but the point is that in this case the politicians are the ones determining that advantage and therefore they can not be expected to get the balance right.

There are many other ways to go through this process in which something like a right balance might be found. What is happening is that this is being pushed through at short notice with a bare majority among the politicans, the one group with a vested interest, and without the checks and balances an independent commission would bring. I believe you would find this would be opposed by about the same people whoever is sitting in government. Dislodging bad politicians is a good idea, it is something Left and Right can readily agree on: this bill makes that harder.

Just a general observation, it does amuse me that to Kiwiblog the meeja are leftwing pinko commie lickspittle, while to Kiwiblogblog they are more and more starting to appear as reactionary right-wing apologists. If they’re pissing off both camps, maybe they’re doing something right?

—-I do think you over-estimate the influence of Kiwiblog, though. It’s just a blog, preaching to the choir, like The Standard. —-

Agree with you 100 percent on that, ruth123. I do think it’s easy to lose a little perspective. Having said that, I enjoy KBB and appreciate the far more congenial atmosphere. Can’t say I agree with everything here, but I appreciate the way differing viewpoints are treated (excluding the swamp trolls, of course).

Seems like a structural perk.

Surely you can understand that in this situation there is a divergence between the interests of sitting politicans and the electorate when the bill the politicans are voting on gives a significant advantage to their own incumbency.

That’s true for both opposition and the government MPs, and explains why over half the MPs are voting for it in spite of so much opposition from outside the House.

December 2008: the confidence and supply agreement is announced. A few minutes later, amidst the explosion of rage, Kiwiblog gets its first “At least with Klark you knew where you stood” comment.