Like the sadist I am, sometimes I like to watch Fox News, cheerleaders of religious conservatism, where the likes of O’Reilly and Hannity make the most ridiculous assertions. According to Hannity, Obama is a socialist because of the US’s increasing deficit, despite George W Bush’s efforts to plunge the surplus he inherited into the red. Yesterday, I enjoyed Hannity slating the network’s opposition for their criticism of the Fox-endorsed anti-Obama “tea party” protests. While I believe it is part of the media role to often advocate a cause, organising anti-government protests is hardly fair and unbiased. And who are the people protesting? They are not the millions who took to the streets objecting to Bush’s illegal war and the erosion of civil liberties. They are tens of thousands of people who voted for the guy that did not win a democratic election last year. They are the sorest of losers, who supported a failed president for eight years and have written off the guy who inherited his mess; a troubled economy and a fractured nation. They are Hannity and Co.’s rent-a-crowd.

In New Zealand, the Left have had to stomach a National Government for six months and, even more difficult, the realisation that John Key is not as bad as previously believed. Key’s empty rhetoric and lack of substance pre-election concerned many, but his inclusive, measured governance has caused a re-think from many. There are indications unpopular policy may be in the pipeline and their pre-Christmas rush and their 100-day inaction may have given opponents some amnunition, but for the time being it’s plain sailing for the Government. The losers of the last election will need to regroup and consider their moves for the future. Let’s not see the pathetic sore-loser response shown by the tea baggers across the Pacific.

Blogging is the internet version of newspaper’s letters to the editor and radio’s talkback. Rather than the media dictate what comments and opinions are aired or published, these formats allow for feedback from the general public. But who is talking? Who is it that writes to the editor? Who rings up the radio station? Who keeps an active blog?

At our community paper with a readership of around 25,000, we get a steady stream of letters to the editor. A vast amount, however, are from familiar names. Typically, but not always, these people have a lot of time on their hands as they are retired. Their gripes are usually with council, many are valid, many are the products of idle minds.

The same people get on the phone calling up late night talkback, complaining about anything and everything.

So who’s blogging? Who are the people behind the most active blogs, many updated as often as daily?

My last post was a month ago, and even then it was a book review. As a reporter I spend most of the day in front of the computer either writing the news or reading the news. In my spare time, doing the same thing but for my blog is hardly appealing. It has to be something I want to get off my chest or something on my mind I want to put online that spurs me to put up another post. Last year as a student I could put up as many as a post a day. Readership skyrocketed! But now I simply do not have the time nor the energy. So who does? And why do they?

I’m not quitting my blog. I’m just writing when I want to, not writing to keep the weekly ratings above 300. Next post might be some time away!

Writer Joe Bennett’s energy and enthusiasm is legendary, captured not only in his regular television appearances but also in his newspaper columns. His sentences race wildly like a high speed chase, weaving through ideas, from one thought to the next, ceasing abruptly with a bizarre observation. It is his ability to describe scenes and experiences which I love, as he will use the most inappropriate words to most aptly convey what he means. It is truly a wonder how he does it.

Where underpants come from follows Bennett’s exploration through China, as he searches for the raw materials that constitute his $8.59 underwear  purchased from the Warehouse. The underwear serve as the vehicle for Bennett’s investigation into globalisation and China’s evergrowing role in the world, as well as the country’s social, historical, political, religious and economic makeup.

His energy and enthusiasm are what makes his quest possible, as he convinces firstly the Warehouse, and then their numerous suppliers, to allow him to see how his cotton undies got from the cotton fields of China to the shelves of New Zealand. What to some may sound like a boring story, Bennett ensures is anything but, with typically bright descriptions bringing his observations to life. For example, a maitresse ‘d at a Shanghai restaurant is described as “wearing what looks like the uniform of a London parking warden and her hair is tied back in a manner that the Soviet Union’s champion woman tractor driver of 1956 would have found just a little severe”. From then on she is referred to as the “tractor-driving champ”. Genius.

I’ll be hunting down Bennett’s numerous other books to give me more late night laughs.

Deborah Coddington is not the only one to be impressed with this year’s TWN, AUT’s student newspaper. The Australian Journalism Education Association were equally impressed, awarding TWN the “Ossie” award for ‘best regular student publication 2008′ in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. And not did we win that, we also won a second category – the ‘Dr Charles Stuart Prize for Best Student Publication (Any Medium)’.

It would be interesting see what the standard of publication we were up against and compare how different journalism schools approach the challenge of producing a newspaper. The skills one learns from doing so are valuable in ‘real world’ journalism, as I am now finding out. I recommend all journalism students who are interested in getting into any aspect of print journalism to take any such paper on offer at your university/institute.

Good luck to the TWNers for next year, let’s see if you can make it two in a row!

I’ve just had an opinion piece by Deborah Coddington in the Herald on Sunday bought to my attention. Coddington commented on the performance of the media through the election, commending some for fine work, whilst slamming others for their waffling and incompetitance.

“And why, on election night, did Sainsbury have Noelle McCarthy wittering on breathlessly?

She came over like a pretty little teenager woken up by adoring dad to join the grown-ups’ party.

It was cruel to watch and McCarthy was completely out of her depth.

The Irish lass is dangerously muddled – does she want to be a celebrity or a journalist? Posing for gossip pages in designer frocks is not really the best way to be taken seriously.”

However, and this is where my and my fellow former student friends get to slap ourselves on the back, Coddington says the future of journalism is in safe hands.

“And are we in New Zealand well-served in the future?

Most definitely, if the publication put out by AUT journalism students, Te Waha Nui (Big Mouth), is any indication.

I picked up their pre-election special in late October and was impressed – good questions asked, short items clearly written, no sign of student smart-arse.

Let’s hope they’re our future Cliftons, Robinsons, Edwards, Clarks – political reporters who’ve become household names for their talents and skills, as opposed to celebrity scribblers who rise without trace because they can dress up and attend the opening of an oyster.”

Well done Te waha nui 2008! Now let’s try find some bloody jobs. Sorry Deborah, but it looks like we’ll end up in PR!

Having just started up a google email account, I was pleased to notice the lack of flashing advertisements blaring across the screen For you see, on my little laptop those adverts practically freeze my computer. I have to scroll down the screen in order to get the ad out of view so other pages can load. Otherwise I’m stuck. News sites often have these moving adverts in the middle of the news story, rendering the story unreadable on my laptop (hint: if you have this problem, read story in print mode!). The worst site for this, however, is the hotmail inbox page. Recent changes have prompted my move to Gmail, as one can no longer scroll down to remove the advert from view.

I was pleased to see no such adverts on the Gmail inbox page, and can now read my emails without fear of an epileptic seizure or risk not being able to view another page for ten minutes whilst I wait for a computer to come out of its own seizure. The adverts are much more subtle, in fact it was a few days till I actually noticed any.

Emailing an journalism lecturer about Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat and Crowded (does anyone recommend it, it looks good), these adverts came up next to the email reply.

Ads & Related Information

Ads in Gmail are placed in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through the Google AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The goal is to provide users with helpful ads, links and content relevant to their specific interests.

Gmail is a technology-based program. Advertising and related information are shown using a completely automated process. Ads are selected for relevance and served by Google computers using the same contextual advertising technology that powers our AdSense program. This technology enables Google to target dynamically changing content such as email or daily news stories.

No humans will read the content of your email in order to target such advertisements or related information. Because the ads and related pages are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you’ll find them relevant and useful.

Gmail users can’t opt out of receiving ads because these sponsored links help Google support the cost of providing Gmail for free to our users. Instead of serving pop-ups and untargeted banner ads, Gmail displays text ads using our contextual advertising technology. These ads should be relevant to the content of your messages and we hope you’ll find them useful.

Your Privacy

Google does not and will never rent, sell or share information that personally identifies you for marketing purposes without your express permission. No email content or other personally identifiable information will be provided to advertisers.

Privacy is an issue we take very seriously. Only ads classified as Family-Safe are distributed through our content network and to your Gmail inbox. For example, Google would block certain ads from running next to an email about catastrophic news.

I’ve posted previously about Google’s advertisement links on websites, then looking at how unfortunate the adverts are associated with news stories. Counseling for those with a fear of flying advertised next to plane crash stories for example. Google’s blocking mechanism appears to be a bit shit.

The conspiracy nutters will no doubt warn my not to continue using gmail for my highly secretive and subversive messages for no doubt someone in silicone valley must surely be reading them, but I’m stoked to have my computer running happily. And I might just read the Friedman book summary from that site! Thanks Google!

TV3’s John Campbell did a marginally better job than One’s Mark Sainsbury to keep the debate civil, but Helen Clark and John Key were again intent on talking over each other and providing viewers with ample reason to reach for the remote. For those of us who stayed turned there were moments of entertainment, particularly when Campbell commented that it was unprecedented for two politicians to argue over who was responsible for negotiating such an unpopular law as the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Witty remarks aside, there was very little substance to the exchanges between the Labour and National leader.

Again analysts are giving the points to Key simply because he didn’t lose. Well he certainly didn’t win either. But Clark’s effort will not slow the momentum National have and after tonight, I fear a National victory may be even closer.

Although I disagree with the Herald’s Audrey Young that Key was the victory, she hits the nail on the head with her summary of the debate:

Save me from the lists in leaders’ debates. Political leaders are so conscious of being interrupted after their one-sentence sound-bite that they cram the party manifesto into their answers. John Key and Helen Clark are both equally afflicted.

Key’s policy list however reads exactly as it would if there were no economic crisis (RMA, curb bureaucracy, tax cuts) and Clark’s policy lists leaves you wondering what she would have had had there been no crisis (emergency mini-budget; infrastructure projects brought forward, job search allowance, retraining allowance).

Key and Clark were not at all inspiring. The real winner of the debate were the small parties. New Zealanders have been robbed by the decision not to include the smaller parties in the leaders debate, as I am sure Key and Clark would have faced some harsher questions than they received tonight or in the first debate. The minor parties will not mind being neglected now, as voters were given several reasons to support them after tonight. As was commented on by each of TV3’s expert panel, Labour and National look very similar. Considering this, voters should cast their votes to the smaller parties they wish to influence either of the sterile main parties. Clark did show her experience by using the threat of Act’s influence on National to warn voters, although it remains to be seen how effective this tactic will be.

So what can we take from this debate? Nothing new about policy, that’s for sure. This was once again a battle of impressions, with John Key attempting to paint Clark as tired and Clark alluding to National’s “secret agenda” and not so “fresh” reality. In this battle Clark was the clear winner. Although Key did point out areas where Labour have arguably failed over the past nine years, particular regarding Helen’s dream and her inability to accomplish it in three terms, he failed to inspire a promising alternative. Instead, it was his political naivety which was unveiled. Often Clark would correct him on history or point out the fallacy of his assertions.

The one area where Key looked really ridiculous, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been picked up on, was when Campbell asked about Labour and the “nanny state”. Key remarked that Labour was “storming through your front door” (or something to that effect) imposing rules on people’s private lives. When pressed to give an example Key put forward the imposing of energy saving lightbulbs. Clark must have been stoked this was the best he could come up with, as she rightly said the EU and even Howard’s Australia had made the switch long before New Zealand. Key replied that New Zealand should not do something just because other countries do, which contradicts any notion of being a fast follower on climate issues. Clark then proceeded to take Key to task on his party’s climate credentials and asserted they have returned to being climate change deniers like they were not so long ago. and she has a point. What measures do Key plan to make? He says he will make no measures that risk Kiwi jobs, but who stands to lose their job over energy saving light bulbs? And if they save energy, no doubt they cost less to run, saving hard-working Kiwis money. And what the hell does this have to do with the “nanny state”?

Key assertion that his party is “fresh” also resulted in egg on his face, as it was pointed out, both by Campbell and Clark, that his party is anything but fresh. Whilst trying to use the Roger Douglas card Clark also linked the health, social service and other cuts of the nineties to the National politicians that Key will be taking to the cabinet table, highlighting that National is the same party as the ruthless one Clark succeeded. Key claimed Clark was stuck in the eighties, but Clark retorted that so are his colleagues, many of whom have been in parliament as long as her.

Considering his lack of political convictions in the past and the revelation that he did not vote whilst abroad, which was up until very recently, I struggle to understand why Key is running to be Prime Minister. TV3 Panelist Linda Clark might be wondering the same sort of thing after his lacklustre performance, asking Key “do you want this job?” When the debate turned to his experiences and the “freshness” of the party, he changed the subject and repeated his policy mantras. As the one question I was keen he answered, I would be disappointed if this man became this country’s PM.

I am so glad that’s over! As much fun and rewarding as making your own newspaper is, it takes a hell of a lot out of you. You can all to easily become dangerous obsessed with it, demanding perfection and becoming angered at any small mistake you find. You work like a slave from 8am till 12 some nights, and expect the same self-destructive dedication from your colleagues. Between fights you leave the building for timeout, or head down to the pub for some liquid relief. But when you make this, you know the sweat, tears and sleepless night were worth it.

Continuing on with the election focus, issue 26 covered everything from student allowances to vandalised billboards. Voters are informed of the major parties positions on imortant issues on the centre spread and we look at all the small parties and what they bring to democracy. Candidates profiled includes Northcote’s Jonathan Coleman, RAM’s Oliver Woods and Green’s dip maker Lisa Er, and we find out what makes media commentator and blogger Russell Brown tick. A ‘Guide to summer’ offers some respite from the elections as we find the best activities and events for summer lovers. In our opinion pages Adrian teaches us a lesson about GST and the economy for the last time, Amberleigh talks about music the way your father no doubt would, Finbarr struggles to list Bush’s achievements in office, and Su Ann looks at crime and Asians in New Zealand. And as a reward for his hard work and expertise, Te Waha Nui photo editor and saviour Wesley Monts has his best work displayed, a collection of photos he took in the wake of Katrina.

Special thanks to Allan Lee for his hard work and guidance in some often trialling times. Thanks also must go to Julie Starr and Graeme Reid whose assistance was vital for the success of this paper. To all my fellow TWN colleagues, thanks for the fun, see you in the media industry, or the dole queue!

Te Waha Nui issue number 25, the third for this semester, is in my hot little hands. Arguably the best issue yet, this week we have had the benefit of filling some pages with profiles done by the magazine students, with articles everyone from Marina Erakovic to the Act Party’s Maori Te Tai Tokerau candidate Peter Tashkoff. Oh, and Robert Fisk! Some great news and politics stories dominate the first half dozen pages with everything from burger chain wars to irate dairy farmers. Again there are some insightful and even humourous opinion pieces and another brilliant Sally Conor cartoon. One of the highlights for me, and not because I contributed some content, was the history spread we did on memorable colourful political moments.

So once more a fortnight of hard work has produced a pleasing result, a great paper that all involved can be satisfied with.

Although I initially though the Herald’s “One Man Poll” sounded like a massive vox pop (which I can’t stand) in the capable hands of Simon Collins the series was likely to be a success. And he does find some interesting people with interesting views on interesting issues. Collins finds people who do sum up what others are thinking and finds out the thought behind their opinions. Fascinating stuff at times. However, either Collins is drawn to some absolute morons, or New Zealand is a country with a disproportionate number of idiot residents.

Here’s a couple from the last few days. There are many more!

An interesting view here from a publican in Kaitaia:

“I don’t believe there’s anyone in the National Party strong enough to lead the country,” says Russell McAlees, 57, a lifetime National voter, who with his wife, Helen, bought the Houhora Tavern, north of Kaitaia, five years ago.

“I didn’t like Don Brash any better. I liked Muldoon back in his day. You need someone strong in those parties. Helen Clark is strong, but she’s led by the Green Party.“

A different perspective on National’s leadership from a seemingly unlikely source. However it is the last line I find most bizarre. Why would someone conclude that Clark is “led by the Green Party”? People often think that if any party is the “tail wagging the dog”, it is the Greens. However, the Greens have never actually been part of any of Labour’s three past coalitions, merely guaranteeing confidence and supply. They have not had that much impact on policy, apart from making environmental issues more mainstream. And before you point to the Crimes Act amendment, remember that firstly that was a private members bill, and secondly it had the support of a parliamentary majority which included John Key. So I fail to see how anyone can claim that anyone, especially Helen Clark, is led by the Green Party.

Staying with the falsely dubbed “anti-smacking” bill, we have James from Mangere Bridge who says:

“If you’re scared of your parents, that is the guiding principle.

“I’m not advocating that parents should thrash their kids,” he says. “But if you’re scared your dad will give you a hiding if you’re bad, then you are less likely to do it.“

In one quote James says he does not condone thrashing kids, but also that the fear of getting thrashed will stop them misbehaving. Hmm. Not only has the threat of punishment deterred criminal activity throughout human history, but those who are disciplined with violence are more likely to resort to violence. I bet James got some real hidings as a kid.

Some people like change for changes sake.

And in Invercargill, 24-year-old travel consultant Rob Wilson said he was switching to National because Labour had simply “had their day”.

“New Zealand needs a strong leader to get it economically focused and Labour is not providing that,” he said.

“Neither is National really, but change is as good as a holiday.“

If John Key is a holiday destination, then I’ll stay at home! I like this idea that governance is best shared on a rotation basis like dish washing duties. It is never that anyone actually likes National, people are just “tired” with Labour. In three years time are we going to be tired with Key, or are we going to stick with him to see him sell some assets?

Tauranga’s Bethlehem College may be thinking that the next time the Herald sends a reporter to ask some students for their opinions, they front up the kids with a considerate heart to accompany a thoughtful mind.

“When 18-year-old James McLaren casts his first vote on November 8, he will be voting for a Government that is not afraid to offend people.

“The current Government is too concerned with being politically correct,” he says “It is too afraid to step up and make a real difference that offends people.

“I feel National will be able to do things, even if it does offend people. For example, at the moment [Labour] is pretty much taxing everything that decent rich people have and giving it all to poor people.”

The pupils of Bethlehem College in Tauranga, where James is a final-year student, are hardly typical of New Zealand’s youth. Parents of secondary students pay almost $4000 a year for its Christian-based education.“

Compelling stuff, James! Christian compassion seems lost on the spoilt private school kid who likely wants to buy a new done-up Subaru or . How dare the government tax “decent rich people” to help out “poor people”. Never thought I would say it, but he could learn something from Jesus!

Well done Simon Collins, you have confirmed the famous quote from Winston Churchill:

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.“