From a profile in the Herald of Labour MP Grant Robertson:
Kiwiblogger and right-wing commentator David Farrar believes Robertson will be at the forefront of a leadership challenge within the next two terms . . .
Describing DPF as ‘Kiwiblogger and right-wing commentator’ is an improvement on outlets like TV3 and NewsTalkZB that just describe him as ‘blogger and commentator’ but it does elide his most significant role in the political process namely that he’s THE NATIONAL PARTY POLLSTER. Quoting him in a story about an opposition MP is a little like citing ‘former TVNZ journalist Fran Mold’ or ‘astute political observer Kevin Taylor’. (There is a slight difference, in that they’re directly employed by their parties, while DPF is the director of a company that the National Party contracts.)
DPF isn’t the only culprit – the worst is ‘former political editor Richard Long’. But DPF is the most successful at getting journalists to accept him as an independent and trustworthy commentator, presumably because he’s so genial and likeable and, unassuming. No one likes to think they’ve been played by the penguin, even though he repeatedly plays many political journalists for suckers on a regular basis.
Farrar owns the franchise on political blogs in NZ and that is because he is very very good at what he does. I think it is disengenuous to suggest that because he is a National pollster that he is biased. Farrars bias goes far deeper than commercial relationships. If Labour had an online media and PR presence that was an a par with Farrar we wouldn’t have red alert and the continuous parade of own goals and inept public relations that have amused us since the fall of the Clark regime.
Comment by will — April 2, 2011 @ 2:27 pm
Add the Standard to Labour’s lousy online presence. The grim voices of the apparatchiks and true believers. One of Farrar’s secret ingredients, aside from his energy, is that he is a liberal and can cope with more than one possible point of view on an issue, even when it is an issue he feels strongly about. He also enjoys what he does and it shows. So many others only do tolerance through gritted teeth and elaborate signalling “I am now being tolerant and considering that another point of view exists but actually it doesn’t,” a bit like Jenny Shipley, Margaret Wilson and Russell Brown. Even though Darryl has what I think are some pretty weird fixed ideas, the Dim Post has a similar (happy) mischief making spirit to Kiwiblog (the blog not the comments section) which is why I will always check it out.
Comment by Tinakori — April 2, 2011 @ 4:19 pm
Farrars bias goes far deeper than commercial relationships
That’s true, but I think it’s broadly true of most party staffers. Just because, say, Phil Goff’s chief of staff adheres to Labour’s values (er, maybe this is a bad example) doesn’t mean his commercial relationship as an employee of the party is unworthy of mention when citing him as a political commentator.
Comment by danylmc — April 2, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
“…repeatedly plays many political journalists for suckers on a regular basis”
I’ve never under stood this… DPF’s methods are so utterly transparent that I can’t believe even the dumbest of our shabby collection of political reporters don’t KNOW to ask themselves ‘now, why would he say that?’ whenever they hear or read something he’s put forward.
There are none so gullible as those that have a looming deadline perhaps?
Comment by TBWood — April 2, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
There are none so gullible as those that have a looming deadline perhaps?
You can see where the Standadistas get their convictions about media bias from. This is about laziness, and gullibility – but the level of laziness and gullibility required for someone to think: ‘I’ll write a story about a politician and go to a de-facto senior staffer in their rival party for commentary and background material’ is so staggering it defies belief.
Comment by danylmc — April 2, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
Well the thing about ‘liberal’ National Party partisans is the priorities see. It’s very easy to be light hearted about things and to happily proclaim your support for GLBT rights, or a liberal abortion regime, or whatever other personal thing it might be. It’s especially easy when the fact of your partisanship displays that you don’t consider these things to actually be important, or at least, not as important as a few points off the marginal tax rate or the partial sale of a few SOEs.
I’m sure DPF would be happy if the National party moved towards a liberal position on those types of issues, but it’s also clear that it doesn’t bother him if it doesn’t.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 2, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
Derek Cheng should be ashamed. Or perhaps he’s planning to create ‘balance’ by interviewing Chris Trotter and some trade union leader about what a waste of space National’s front bench is.
Comment by Sacha — April 2, 2011 @ 7:30 pm
The difference being that Labours front bench are a waste of space.
Comment by will — April 2, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
“…political reporters don’t WANT to ask themselves ‘now, why would he say that?’ ”
I worked it out…
Comment by TBWood — April 2, 2011 @ 7:53 pm
I don’t mind if a reporter wants to cite Trotter, even if I disagree with everything he says – he is, after all, a left-wing political commentator, and as far as I know he isn’t paid by the Labour Party to advise them on strategy and perform a communications role. I don’t mind if they cite DPF – he’s smart, he has stuff to say – it’s the tendency for journalists to lie to their readers about who he is that offends me.
Also, we have do have dozens of political scientists who are happy to comment to the media – you don’t have to interview a guy who’s openly employed by the government to spin on their behalf.
Comment by danylmc — April 2, 2011 @ 8:40 pm
I have to disagree – Kiwiblog, though definitely rightist, seems to be positioned closer to the extreme thinking of the Act party than it does to mainstream National.
Comment by annie — April 2, 2011 @ 8:56 pm
So the answer is for the hordes of political scientists to make themselves relevant and accessable.
Comment by will — April 2, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
My comment #11 – should have said the tone I am talking about is set more by the comments than by the blogged content itself.
Comment by annie — April 2, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
Farrar gives political reporters the illusion or sensation (if you’re generous) of being inside the tent, or close to events, in a way no political scientist ever does. You’d get better analysis from Raymond Miller, Bryce Edwards or Jon Johannson, but the reporters aren’t after analysis, they’re after personality colour and slightly elevated forms of gossip. Psychology not political science.
Comment by The dude abides — April 2, 2011 @ 10:25 pm
@will… the Science Media Centre has done this for Science (under the auspices of the RSNZ). Perhaps there’s merit in a similar function from one (all) of the pol sci schools? I suspect as it’s a much more subjective, er, subject it might not be possible.
Comment by TBWood — April 3, 2011 @ 7:54 am
This is bad for Phil Goff!
Comment by andy (the other one) — April 3, 2011 @ 7:54 am
@The dude abides – I think your comment just about sums up Farrar’s appeal. But it still doesn’t explain the routine failure of our media to acknowledge his very tight links to the National Party, which to my mind now amounts to downright dishinesty and disception.
Comment by Sanctuary — April 3, 2011 @ 10:00 am
Entertaining and intelligent political scientists? An empty category, surely?
Comment by Tinakori — April 3, 2011 @ 10:53 am
I think that Farrar relies of Whaleoil. Whaleoil puts something really contentious and totally repugnant forward, but most people cannot stand his outrageous ideas so his immediate market is quite limited. But this is where Farrar becomes so important. He then writes a post that links to Whaleoil and usually says something like “Whaleoil has gone too far” etc, and at the same time he promotes the link and, therefore, ensures that his more ‘mainstream audience’ can then read the hyperbolic rightest dross. Then the mainstream media rush to Farrar for his comments and ‘bang’ Goff is being toppled in the weekend; Hughes has been caught wearing a gimp mask; Tizard is drinking champagne from the navels of 22 year old waiters etc. etc.
Comment by Tim — April 3, 2011 @ 2:24 pm