First ACT implodes, now all the right-wing bloggers are boycotting the National Business Review because their attempt to rig the vote on some online contest the NBR ran fell through. What’s next? Street fights between the Business Round Table and the Herald’s editorial desk?
August 25, 2010
69 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sure NBR did the wrong thing and has tainted its brand as well as Veuve Clicquot’s … but at the end of the day it’s a wine competition. Is it really worth all the froth and spittle and tearing of nighties?
BTW Veuve with whitebait sandwhiches is the best.
Comment by Ataahua — August 25, 2010 @ 8:46 am
goes to show how pathetic the right are……I mean, how upsetting…being denied ones champagne…..get a fuken life!!!
Comment by kerry — August 25, 2010 @ 8:47 am
Yeah, them ‘right’ they’re just like them ‘darkies’, all the same
Comment by expatexpat — August 25, 2010 @ 8:53 am
Quote of the day, pure and perfect irony edition: from the National Party blogger …
“It is about causing people to think it is one thing, when it is something else.”
Comment by sammy — August 25, 2010 @ 8:58 am
What next? Well, a MP who apparently isn’t one is going to try and get rid of Rodders in Epsom by splitting the remnant ACT vote…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10668677
“Act MP Peter Tashkoff has announced he will contest party leader Rodney Hide for the seat of Epsom…”
Comment by Sanctuary — August 25, 2010 @ 8:58 am
They state that Tashkoff is an MP not once but twice. Nice.
Comment by Stephen — August 25, 2010 @ 9:05 am
“…Yeah, them ‘right’ they’re just like them ‘darkies’, all the same…”
You’ve got to find the NZ right hilarious. A winning combination of passive, unattractive whining and aggressive, hubristic authoritarianism, they are poster boys for every theory of the impact of bad potty training later in life thay was ever published.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 25, 2010 @ 9:08 am
I juxtapose that with http://www.thestandard.org.nz/
Comment by expatexpat — August 25, 2010 @ 9:11 am
oh hang on, they have the same attributes….
Comment by expatexpat — August 25, 2010 @ 9:11 am
A great deal of political psychology research supports Sanctuarys’ comment: Right Wing Authoritarianism predicts those behaviours, and (as is hardly surprising) individuals high in RWA are incredibly common, particularly in the ranks of centre and far right political parties. Which is not to say that those who are politically left cannot also be high in RWA. They can be, it’s just really hard to find them. Likewise for people who are high in Left Wing Authoritarianism, which doesn’t seem to exist except for violent far-left extremists. By contrast RWA is damn near everywhere.
Incidentally, individuals high in RWA tend to be primarily motivated by fear, and by perceived threats to the existing political system which provides them with security and comfort. They are quite literally terrified of anything and everything that could possibly change things, and will sell their souls if a respected authority figure tells them to.
So yes, the NZ right are passive, unattractive whiners, with a delightful mix of aggression towards real or imagined threats to their security.
Comment by The PC Avenger — August 25, 2010 @ 9:24 am
It’s actually really easy to find them, http://www.thestandard.org.nz/
Comment by expatexpat — August 25, 2010 @ 9:31 am
Pfft – Mumm Cordon Rouge is a much better drop.
Comment by Michael Stevens — August 25, 2010 @ 9:39 am
“Street fights between the Business Round Table and the Herald’s editorial desk?”
I would pay to watch that
Comment by Matt Nolan — August 25, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Sad that one can’t just fire up a web browser and win hundreds of dollars of champagne with an opening declaration of “I weight heaaaps!” and describing a pontoon party with guests coming dressed up as “complete wankers – which shouldnt be too hard!”.
Verily the ethical crisis of our time.
Comment by Sam Finnemore — August 25, 2010 @ 9:43 am
If the competition was to win your weight in organic-tofu-burgers-to-be-given-to-a-low-socio-economic-community-organisation-of-your-choice, the “left” would be equally as hacked off as Farrar & Co. are.
The NBR have acted in bad faith, plain and simple. Just because they’re on our team, they’re not going to get an easy ride.
Comment by Phil — August 25, 2010 @ 9:46 am
Actually expatexpat, all you are doing is confirming the whole theory as (much better) stated by the pc avenger.
Your attempts at false equivalence demonstrates in spades the right’s thin skinned and paranoid passive aggressive behaviour – conduct agressive, relentless, no holds barred character assassinations of thier opponents real and imagined then when they are called on it point childishly to one or two isolated cases and whine that they are actually the VICTIMS of an equally small minded liberal-socialist commie mainstream monolith.
You are not fooling anyone buddy.
Comment by Sanctuary — August 25, 2010 @ 9:46 am
A great deal of political psychology research…
otherwise known as left wing bias. “perceived threats to the existing political system” can just as easily be the common sense and pragmatism about resisting change for change’s sake, and actually thinking through the long term impact of change over short term gains.
Right Wing Authoritarianism might be a nice disclaimer to narrow the focus of the meme, but then ignores the huge numbers of right wing liberals and small government advocates that would be resisting such authoritarianism.
etc.
Comment by ZenTiger — August 25, 2010 @ 9:46 am
now all the right-wing bloggers…
Well, all of them except for the ones that aren’t of course. Will all the right wing bloggers that don’t have their knickers in a twist over this please do not put up your hands. Oh my God, not a hand in sight.
Comment by ZenTiger — August 25, 2010 @ 9:50 am
ZT, the ‘huge numbers’ which are a tiny minority in virtually every single right-wing political movement — so tiny as to be the object of ridicule, even within the right?
L
Comment by Lew — August 25, 2010 @ 9:50 am
So DPF has gone from expressing “My thanks to NBR for the platform for the last two to three years” (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/a_final_dispatch.html) to “I trusted National Business Review to act honourably. I was wrong, and have learnt a lesson” (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/08/the_nbr_veuve_clicquot_competition.html) because they didn’t give someone a shitload of free champagne.
And they say the Left has an unhealthy sense of entitlement!
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 25, 2010 @ 9:51 am
Yeah I’ve been ‘attempting’ false equivalency and obviously that’s a proxy for the paranoid and overly aggressive behaviour manifested in my previous comments except I wasn’t and they weren’t but thankyou for trying to put words in my mouth.
I was just pointing out that you’ve rolled out some gross generalisations about the ‘right’ that could just as easily be attributed to the ‘left’
Comment by expatexpat — August 25, 2010 @ 9:58 am
Well, all of them except for the ones that aren’t of course.
I guess I should have said ‘National and ACT affiliated bloggers’, but it’s a bit of a mouthfull.
Comment by danylmc — August 25, 2010 @ 10:02 am
So, political psychology research has established that Right-Wing Authoritarianism is more common in right-wingers than left-wingers? How much did this astonishingly counter-intuitive discovery cost, I wonder? Whatever, it was clearly money very well spent.
Comment by Psycho Milt — August 25, 2010 @ 10:15 am
What’s next? Street fights between the Business Round Table and the Herald’s editorial desk?
I picture road blocks of burning tyres, last seasons fashionable couches and old CRT monitors at the boarder of Remuera and Meadowbank/StJohns. All thoughtfully suspended to let the pool maintenance and lawnmowing franchisees in to work, and get the kids off to the right schools.
Comment by andy (the other one) — August 25, 2010 @ 10:15 am
I am annoyed with the National Party. In fact more than annoyed – I am angry.
Readers will know of their winning of the last General Election. People had the chance to win their government of choice and the competition was promoted on the basis of democracy.
After the election date had passed, National announced that democracy would not be maintained, but that legislation would be rushed through under urgency and in some cases Councils disbanded and the National Cabinet would then select their favourite top councillors.
National has the legal right to use urgency. This is not a debate about legality. They said they would be democratic. They changed this after winning the election, disallowing the voters to have their say at Select Committees.
I deplore what National has done. They have acted unethically. If they had made clear at the very beginning that democratic process would not count for anything, and all you had to do was be in the top ten list of friends of the National Caucus– then I (and others) would have acted very differently. They basically conned voters and other media users into voting for them under false pretences.
Quite a few people are upset about this. Some are calling for boycotts of National, cancelled subscriptions etc. I’m not going to go down that path. I doubt National cares too much about losing my potential subscription (especially as they kindly provide me with a complimentary pamphets anyway.
My message to the National is that you have lost something infinitely more valuable than my subscription. You have lost both my respect and my trust. That is hard to do, and even harder to undo.
Comment by MikeG — August 25, 2010 @ 10:28 am
PM: I should have been clearer: the name RWA is somewhat of a misnomer. It’s only termed as such because the particular cluster of attitudes and behaviours was first identified in the political right. Given how the theory works, and the predictions it makes, Status Quo Authoritarianism is possibly a better description. RWA predicts a tendency towards following authority figures that will keep things how they are. LWA predicts a tendency towards supporting authority figures promising some kind of eternal revolution. One (of the multiple, overlapping and feedback inducing) reasons for why RWA is more common in right-wingers is simply because right wing policies are, in most western societies, best suited towards maintaining the status quo. In a totalitarian, leftist society, you would expect to find supporters of the government also being high in RWA.
ZenTiger: So what do you suggest, given that members of the political right seem recalcitrant to actually do and publish peer reviewed research on what leads to their own (and others) political views? Regarding pragmatism and so on: if only that was true! I think you underestimate the amount of work that has been done trying to show that it could be those things, or that there is some alternative explanation. What you seemed to be hinting at was the problem of presupposing what is the desirable attitude, and those high in RWA are seen as deviant from this. I suspect this comes more from reading second hand accounts of the research, rather than the original source.
As for libertarians: RWA doesn’t explicitly account for them, or attempt to do so in any way. I think you may be slightly confused about what RWA is, what it predicts, and it’s scope. It’s not a overarching theory of political affiliation, but just one facet of a complex body of research. Social Dominance Orientation is perhaps a more useful account of libertarianism, or at least belligerent, fuck you got mine variety.
Comment by The PC Avenger — August 25, 2010 @ 10:52 am
Given that Danyl enjoys satire, surely there is a whole piece in there that’s begging to be written. The spark that ignited the revolution. Perhaps including a shout-out to Battleship Pontemkin where, instead of a baby carriage on the steps it’s the last bottle of Moet in Remuera!
Comment by Tom Hunter — August 25, 2010 @ 10:53 am
Make it the last bottle of Veuve in the carriage and I think you’re onto a winner.
L
Comment by Lew — August 25, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Note regarding the name “right-wing authoritarianism”: someone in the Soviet Union who was very anti-American and strongly supported the bureaucratic establishment would qualify as a “right-wing authoritarian”, despite having left-wing politics.
Comment by derp de derp — August 25, 2010 @ 11:00 am
No – I thought about that and I think the last bottle has to be Moet – or perhaps Lindaur.
Comment by Tom Hunter — August 25, 2010 @ 11:00 am
huge numbers of right wing liberals and small government advocates that would be resisting such authoritarianism
That would be Roy and Douglas then. Where are the rest?
Comment by The Fox — August 25, 2010 @ 11:07 am
MikeG @25 thank you. too true.
Comment by nommopilot — August 25, 2010 @ 11:09 am
“The spark that ignited the revolution. Perhaps including a shout-out to Battleship Pontemkin where, instead of a baby carriage on the steps it’s the last bottle of Moet in Remuera!
“
Cristal Night?
Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 25, 2010 @ 11:42 am
They’re guilty of not thinking it through, for sure.
But the intention was plainly to seek a witty, creative written entry. They didn’t anticipate that a popular vote might be stacked behind a lame, unfunny — and frankly unusable for brand purposes — in-joke. From what I can see, they were entitled by the terms to do what they did in the end and choose an entry that actually was witty, creative and usable.
If Farrar was to simply say “this is a poor show”, he’d have a point. But the screeching chorus of adolescent entitlement today is just bizarre.
Comment by Russell Brown — August 25, 2010 @ 11:50 am
That’s all very well, Mr Brown, but I’m not sure you understand how VERY IMPORTANT the VRWC is, and how INFLUENTIAL their views are … so that if you interfere with their fun you are blocking the will of THOSE THAT REALLY MATTER.
Actually, reminds me of when I was at school and we thought it would be really funny to block vote for an alternative, earring wearing, feather-haired Goth kid as head boy. How we seethed when the teachers ignored the result and appointed a clean cut, sports playing boy instead. Mind you, we were 17 years old and didn’t have anything better to worry about …
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 25, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Busted blonde it is said, has been assiduously putting on weight to maximise her winnings. Ah the greed of these people of teh VRWC.
cactus kate has been shrilling on her blog all year about her expensive ‘taste’ in alcohol, alternately blogging about her taste her hangovers and her misplaced articles of clothing, luggage whatever.
Alcoholic people are not classy, but this is a lesson learned in the real world not on a blog. And the money they waste – guzzling (fatly) from a bottle of Veuve will have the effect after the third glass, of blurring the taste buds anyway.
If cactus kate, busted blond, farrar, whaleoil et al are determined to have a Louis XI pissup at NBR’s expense and are now thwarted, why don’t they just buy a flagon of sherry each. After all, sherry surely is made to suit the VRWC drinking style.
Comment by Alastair — August 25, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
That’s all very well, Mr Brown, but I’m not sure you understand how VERY IMPORTANT the VRWC is, and how INFLUENTIAL their views are … so that if you interfere with their fun you are blocking the will of THOSE THAT REALLY MATTER.
The only member of the VRWC I read regularly is DPF – I think the rest are idiots. Looking over their blogs today reminds me of the degree to which these guys hunt as a pack, run the same talking points and then link to each other to create the illusion of a wider consensus.
Comment by danylmc — August 25, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
danyl,
Very well said. I’ll post on Pundit later today, linking to this comment thread. After all, if we Progressive Conservatives don’t look out for one-another, who will?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 25, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
They are probably well known but I was not aware of Veuve Clicquot before, I suspect their name recognition has gone up.
No NBR subscriptions will be cancelled, we don’t have several dozen business papers to pick and choose from.
Despite apparently having his trust shattered, DPF will not start automatically disbelieving everything written in the NBR, and may even do a column for them again if it’s a good gig and the price is right.
Comment by Michael — August 25, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
While it was only a silly promotional competition it does highlight the fact that you can’t expect to manipulate the internet for PR purposes without being completely upfront and expect no blowback.
As for characteristics of RWA versus LWA psycho-babble that some are spouting here. It is pretty clear that both sides suffer from that sort of affliction.
Comment by Gosman — August 25, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
@Gosman – a variation on what you said –
While it was only a silly promotional competition it does highlight the fact that you can’t expect to manipulate the internet reading crowd to try and win and expect no blowback.
Comment by MikeG — August 25, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Any right wing man (or woman) of the universe who won’t buy their own champagne isn’t really worthy of the title. God, I bet it was non-vintage too…
Comment by garethw — August 25, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Right wing poster boys?
Cactus Kate and Roar Prawn?
I do not think so.
You are on your own Sanctuary.
Comment by peterlepaysan — August 25, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Wow – they even updated the Veuve Cliquote wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veuve_Clicquot
“In 2010, Veuve Cliquot sponsored a New Zealand “Social Media” competition with the National Business Review. The decision of the editors of that newspaper to deprive the popular vote winner of her prize caused outcry in the local on-line media.”
These people are so absurd.
Comment by danylmc — August 26, 2010 @ 10:15 am
and done anonymously!! what a bunch of whiners.
(boom boom)
Comment by che tibby — August 26, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Wow – they even updated the Veuve Cliquote wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veuve_Clicquot
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Comment by Stephen — August 26, 2010 @ 10:38 am
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nbr-apologises-veuve-clicquot-competition-confusion-128939
Comment by davidabo — August 26, 2010 @ 10:47 am
After all, if we Progressive Conservatives don’t look out for one-another, who will?
Forget the far-right cannibalism, the Progressive Conservatives are heading for trouble:
“I am a fan of the prime minister,” says [Julian] Robertson, who is due to open his third New Zealand resort, Matakauri Lodge, this Friday. “Now they have a Progressive Conservative premier. I think it will be much better for them.”
New Zealand’s Trader-In-Chief, Bloomberg via NZ Herald, 25 August 2010
Comment by gazzaj — August 26, 2010 @ 11:18 am
Check the shadows Geddis.
Comment by expatexpat — August 26, 2010 @ 11:29 am
Tangentially related:
Our Daughter Isn’t a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn’t Read
Atlas Shrugged.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/8/12hague.html
Comment by Phil — August 26, 2010 @ 11:42 am
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nbr-apologises-veuve-clicquot-competition-confusion-128939
In addition, the publisher will personally provide Busted Blonde’s weight in Veuve Clicquot to her to demonstrate that NBR will not allow its integrity, transparency or honesty in its dealings with its readers to be compromised in any way. She received the most online votes in the competition and NBR happily salutes that success.
Danyl’s not invited to the party.
Comment by Phil — August 26, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
I thought the response was a cleverly written, dripping in sarcasm FU from Coleman to a cosy group of self aggrandising people, precisely because they have had zero effect.
I think Coleman is taking the michael and having a laugh at their expense.
Comment by insider — August 26, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
[...] we have in this country. Here for example is DPFs rant on the big issue of the week. But MikeG in a comment at Dim Post made the point far far better than I could have. If our tighty righties are outraged not at their [...]
Pingback by Lost respect and trust « The Standard — August 26, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
.
Farrar and Odgers seemed to be obsessed with alcohol. Obsessed! As for Slater, a chap suffering from the depressions shouldn’t be tippling. That’s all I’m gonna say.
Obsessed!
Comment by Mako — August 26, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
Obsessed! Alcohol!
That’s all.
Comment by Mako — August 26, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Coughalcoholicscough.
Comment by Mako — August 26, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Another victory for the Cheerleaders of Capitalism.
Socialism fails yet again. Nice.
Comment by OECD rank 22 kiwi — August 26, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Interesting comment, OECD rank 22. Can you explain how it realtes to the above article, which appears to be about one group of advocates of right-wing capitalism clashing with another?
Comment by kahikatea — August 26, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
“As for Slater, a chap suffering from the depressions shouldn’t be tippling. That’s all I’m gonna say.”
I believe one of DPF’s posts made clear that Slater won’t be partaking.
I honestly hope they enjoy the prize, since they clearly wanted it so very, very much.
Comment by Sam Finnemore — August 26, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
Interesting comment, OECD rank 22.
I was going to try to make an implausible and absurd linkage to how this relates to the ancient conflict between capitalism and socialism but I am way out of my league.
Comment by Stephen — August 26, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
Self obsessed media whores like Odgers and Blond should not be given the oxygen of publicity. Odgers nomination of that prostitute was simply another self publicity attempt, aloong with the faux outrage about this. They are try hard Lady Gagas without the talent. Veuve should have stood their ground.
Or maybe Mark Weldon was behind it, eh?
Comment by Ruth — August 26, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
@Ruth:
Odgers/Weldon/behind …
Must. Resist. Cheap. Joke.
Comment by Mako — August 26, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Ooh, forgot to say: Obsessed!
Comment by Mako — August 26, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
@Sam Smiley-Face
I believe one of DPF’s posts made it clear Slater won’t be partaking.
If true, then kudos to Slater for recognising that alcohol and depression do NOT mix.
Comment by Mako — August 26, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
64 comments commenting about how something isn’t worthy of news.
And who can resist a standard comment from Ruth about someone she mentions more than I do.
Jesus wept….nice to see envy at work again.
Yet NO ONE was capable in the week of Pedobear’s alcohol reforms, of any witty comment about the crassness of a competition that encouraged the winner to be as obese as possible and the binge drinking of alcohol.
What kind of lefties are you?
Comment by Cactus Kate — August 26, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
“Jesus wept….nice to see envy at work again…”
WTF are you talking about cougar? Have another drink.
Comment by Guy Smiley — August 27, 2010 @ 5:42 am
Sorry, that was me above.
Comment by Bernie Liederkrantz — August 27, 2010 @ 7:05 am
disgusting! lefties (which by Cactus Kate’s definition means almost everyone) feeling no obligation to live up to Cactus Kate’s stereotypes!
what’s the world coming to?
Comment by kahikatea — August 27, 2010 @ 8:19 am
Yet NO ONE was capable in the week of Pedobear’s alcohol reforms, of any witty comment about the crassness of a competition that encouraged the winner to be as obese as possible and the binge drinking of alcohol.
Cath, you make a very good point, although utterly ruined by your adoption of Slater’s immature nickname for one of the most capable ministers in the National government.
Comment by Mako — August 27, 2010 @ 10:29 am