[UPDATE - David responds]

The NZ Association of Convenience Stores (another pro-tobacco lobby group helmed by Glenn Inwood) put out a press release this morning claiming that 60% of retailers opposed a display ban on cigarettes.

Leaving aside the little tidbit that nearly a third of the association’s constituents actually want the ban, Lyndon here at the Scoop offices Stephen Judd noticed something odd about the PDF of polling data supporting this.

The research was apparently conducted by Curia, the polling firm owned and operated by Kiwiblog’s David Farrar. Nothing particularly unusual about that, and Farrar is free to accept whoever he likes as a client.

But if you right-click and select Document Properties, the pdf’s author is apparently one Aaron Bhatnagar. You know, like the Auckland City Councillor. Who is also John Banks’ campaign strategist. Whose polling is also done by Curia.

Did Farrar borrow his laptop or something? What’s going on?

[UPDATE] David responds:

Heh simple explanation. I tend to open existing documents and resave them under a new title for a new client. Aaron drafted up some questions for one of the polls for John Banks, and that must be a document I used to do the results for the NZACS.

Around 18 months ago The Standard got excited by something similiar when I put out my 50 page analysis of the election results, as the properties had it as Ministerial Services. They thought it meant I was on the payroll, but instead it meant I had used the 96 analysis in 1999 and 2002, and 2005 and 2008 while never bothering to change the properties!

One of these days I must set up some proper templates

Cheers

DPF

[By David Farrar, Keith Ng, Rob Salmond, Tim Watkin (and now me)]

Many people are concerned about the quality of public affairs journalism in New Zealand. Being concerned is a good start, but how can you take the next step? How can you help make it better? Yes, you.

Here is one way. Follow this link and vote for Nicola Kean in the AMP “Do Your Thing” Scholarship competition.

It is an online popularity contest, and the winner gets $10,000 to help them pursue their dreams. Voting is quick, easy, free, and for a good cause. Of course, there are many, many fantastic applicants for this award, and we are not opposed to any one of them winning the money. We’re just especially in favour of Nicola winning, because of the value that her dream holds for all of us.

Nicola’s dream is to go to the US for postgraduate study in journalism. She’s already done the hard part and got accepted to Columbia University, one of the best and most selective programs in the world. Now she just needs a lot of cash.

Nicola, 24, is already a prize-winning journalist, winning an ASPA award in her second year as a Salient staffer and being selected for a global student journalism award handed out by the UN. She is also a prize-winning student, winning a Fulbright scholarship this year and earlier winning three of the big prizes offered in Victoria’s political science department (best first year student, best BA, best Honours student).

She is going to go far (when you start in Upper Hutt that is sometimes a good idea), and could well become one of New Zealand’s very best public affairs journalists. That is what motivates her:

“In one of my research papers…, I described the impacts of political journalism becoming increasingly leader-focussed at the expense of policy. In the paper, I found that the increasing focus on leaders and leadership, and the reporting of the ”game” of politics, in the media was one of many contributing factors in the ”trivialisation” of New Zealand politics. My medium-term goal is to help counteract this trend in my own reporting…”

How good could she be? That depends partly on whether she gets to learn the state of the art from the world’s best in New York. And that is where you can help by voting for her.

And if you want to help even more, go to her website and give her some money.

This post is going up simultaneously on Kiwiblog, Public Address, Pundit, and The Standard. It is a non-partisan effort. We’re all backing Nicola’s campaign because we, left and right, partisans and non-partisans, all want what you want. We want top quality journalists in New Zealand holding the people in charge, whoever they are, to account for their actions and the consequences.

So let’s all club together and help Nicola get to Columbia.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing on behalf of [REDACTED], its subsidiaries and affiliates ([REDACTED]).

[REDACTED] has become aware that there exists an unauthorized use of [REDACTED]‘s copyrightable material on multiple pages of the scoop.co.nz website (the “Scoop Website”), which we understand to be owned and operated by Scoop Media Ltd.

The content in question is a series of financial text reports entitled [REDACTED], developed by or on behalf of [REDACTED] that it utilizes in connection with its financial businesses.

Below are some examples of the infringing content on the Scoop Website:

[REDACTED]

Copyright in the infringing content is owned by [REDACTED]. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials as described above is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

[REDACTED] requests Scoop promptly take down the [REDACTED] Reports (including all excerpts and links thereto) from the Scoop Website, and any Scoop affiliates’ websites. [REDACTED] also requests that Scoop takes reasonable steps to ensure violations of [REDACTED]‘s copyright in the [REDACTED]Reports does not occur on the Scoop Website in future.

[LEGALESE, ENDS]

Our response (bolding is mine):

Hi Leo,

Thankyou for your letter. For your information the New Zealand copyright law is not the same as the DMCA and there is no provision for  takedown notices to be issued.

Before we remove the material requested I would ask that you go back to your client with our response below. It has been considered carefully.

Our view is that your material was sent to us unsolicited as press release content – and that we are therefore free to use it and publish it if we wish to do so.

Corporate content which is sent to the media as press release material contains with it an express copyright license to republish. In contractual tems the consideration for this license is  is increased exposure to material which your bank wishes to use to promote its services. It was sent to us with the intention of increasing exposure of the bank and that is what is achieved by our use of it.

As for the standard form copyright notice on the linked documents – these are contained on all manner of material distribued to the media – often mistakenly – so its presence on a document that we have linked to is no real indication of a desire to prevent republication by the agency issuing a release.

We fail to see how in any manner whatsoever your client is prejudiced by our publication of this material – especially as it links back to your full report and clearly credits your bank as the source.

On one reading the use of exerpts plus a link is completely within the bounds of fair use.

On another reading our publication of these reports is in fact promoting your clients business. According to our understanding of the law in NZ you would therefore find it very hard to make any claim in copyright for either loss of income as a result of our publication nor for income inappropriately earned by us (which is likely to be only a few cents anyway).

The link makes your clients material more findable on the web – increases its google ranking in search engine queries and in short is a positive to you not a negative.

Finally – as a matter of curiosity are you attempting to eradicate all cases of unauthorised use of your material from the web? I would think that seeking to do so for services like yahoogroups and discussion forums will likely prove impossible and very harmful to your organisation’s reputation.

Looking forward to your reversion.

The last time Tibet came up in New Zealand politics was when Key declined to meet the Dalai Lama when he visited New Zealand last year. At the time reporters called Key out on a promise he’d made on the 2008 campaign trail that he’d do so, but Key replied that he simply “wouldn’t get a lot out of that particular meeting”.

That may be so – and it’s not like his predecessor was any less evasive – but Key’s apology is not just a backpedal on the issue of Tibetan annexation. It is also the latest in a string of diplomatic handwaving over clashes between Chinese officialdom and freedom of speech in New Zealand.

Remember Nick Wang in 2007? Wang was an accredited member of the Parliamentary press gallery who was barred from a press conference with China’s then Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan by an officer in New Zealand’s own diplomatic protection squad. While Speaker Mary Wilson confirmed Wang had every right to cover the event, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen dismissed the incident altogether:

Dr Cullen said there had been a misunderstanding and Wang was removed “after he got upset”. “I think it’s unfortunate that Wang got himself overly wound up on that matter.”

A year later Wang was denied a Chinese visa to cover the signing of New Zealand’s free-trade deal and Cullen was approached for comment:

“No New Zealand citizen has a right to enter China. China, like every other country, reserves the right to withhold entry across its own borders.

“New Zealand does exactly the same thing, and indeed this Government … declined to give a visa for the entry into New Zealand of David Irving in the past.”

This is all technically correct but incredibly mealy-mouthed: Wang was not a holocaust denier on a book tour; he was a New Zealand reporter traveling with a New Zealand delegation to cover a story about New Zealand. There was no reason Cullen couldn’t publicly appeal Wang’s case as with any other international incident, other than that  the Clark government refused to brook any conflict that even remotely jeapordised their chances of a free-trade agreement.

Then there’s also the 1999 protests during the visit of then-President Jiang Zemin, where New Zealand police officers stood on protesters’ Tibetan flags (sound familiar?), blocked protesters’ line of sight, closed roads on an ad-hoc basis and forced demonstrators 100 metres away from the venue.

The Police Complaints Authority report on the incident seems to talk out of both sides of its mouth: it found “no political directive was given to police” but acknowledged a decidedly political-sounding difficulty “at an operational level”:

The Police Operational Order prepared for both the visit of the President of China and the President of South Korea noted the President of China’s sensitivity to both visible and audible protest and recorded that police would “make every effort to minimise the impact of protest on either visit”. That undertaking, whilst ostensibly innocuous, carried with it the obvious and inherent risk of curbing or inhibiting the right of protestors to carry out a lawful and peaceful protest.

It can now only be a matter of speculation as to how police proposed to ensure the right of peaceful protest, whilst at the same time limiting by lawful means the exposure of the Presidents to that protest. The duty to ensure the safety of the Presidents did not extend to shielding them from exposure to lawful and peaceful demonstration by New Zealand citizens. There is no evidence that the President of China was ever at risk during his visit to New Zealand.

The Greens immediately sent a letter of protest to the then-PM Jenny Shipley but the Scoop archives have no record of any public comment by Shipley on the matter.

Taken together these incidents paint a clear and deeply troubling picture of Labour and National attitudes towards freedom of speech: when in Rome, for god’s sake don’t upset the Carthaginians. They’re a major trade partner.

Oh, Rewa…

Now to a current problem that gets to the heart of today’s mismanagement of Treaty relations. Just after the closing of Parliament last year, when MPs couldn’t debate the issue, the Government released its proposals for dealing with the foreshore and seabed following a legal decision that overturned 125 years of settled law.

The simple option was to legislate to establish the Crown ownership that almost everyone believed already existed. Instead, the Government has come up with a convoluted notion called “public domain”. On the face of it, it sounds good. But it leaves room for much more than just limited recognition of “customary rights”, and in fact embodies vast powers, including the right to a Maori veto.

First, Government documents make it clear that the proposed “customary title” will allow the development of commercial activity arising from customary use. This “development right” will mean an expansion of traditional customary rights.

Secondly, along with commercial development, customary title also gives Maori a veto power over anyone else’s development, whether commercial or recreational. As I read the papers released by the Government, anyone wanting to build a small jetty on a coastal property where customary title has been established will need iwi consent. And what we know from experience is that this is likely to require a substantial payment to smooth the path for consent.

Thirdly, Maori also gain a new role in the management of the entire coastline. Customary title will give commercial development rights, which over time will inevitably erode public access. In addition, 16 newly-created bureaucracies will give Maori a more dominant role than other New Zealanders in the use and development of the coastline, not only where customary title is granted, but elsewhere as well. All these committees will be taxpayer-funded. Maori will gain access to even more taxpayers’ funds for consultants, lawyers and hui to “build capacity” to take part in this process.

It is not hard to envisage what is going to happen.

The additional costs in any development process will make a small number of people much better off, but will make all other New Zealanders, including most Maori, worse off, by slowing, and in many cases blocking entirely, the potential for development of our resources, especially aquaculture.

There are massive conflicts of interest in all of this, and they will inevitably invite corruption. Under the proposals, Maori can now be owners, managers and regulators, all at the same time, thereby ensuring their own developments can succeed. They can block others if they can show to sympathetic authorities that their customary right is adversely affected. It is astonishing that the Government could establish such a conflict-ridden model. It is an absolute recipe for disaster.

OOOOOOOOh they are sharp aren’t they? Very good demolition of ACT on campus, good chase on National’s support of VSM, and excellent post on academic freedom. If this is the future of our news rooms, things are not as bad as they seem.

Unfortunately his collaborator Tim Selwyn wasn’t quite so impressed:

Earnest, researched, sober – and being about tertiary education, very dull. Striking an almost neutral pose it reads more like a policy journal than a blog.

Oh well, you can’t win them all. Unless you’re Amanda Fisher, who was at the Actual Media Awards on Saturday and took home the prize for Best Student Journalism. Fisher is also a winner of this year’s Bruce Jesson Emerging Journalism prize (along with me, the Herald‘s Michael Dickison, RNZ’s Motoko Kakubayashi, international music journo Sarah Taane and Westport News‘ Chloe Vaughan) for a series we did last year on a group of Masterton residents who were unaware their homes were built on toxic soil.

That’s about it for now, really. There’s plenty to do back at the Scoop offices, I don’t have an interesting or nuanced perspective on the seabed and foreshore and Twitter is basically crowdsourcing satire these days, so I’ll be back in a couple of weeks I guess. Thanks for reading; see you all in a bit.

P.S. – New bloggers welcome! If you’re a student journalist, journalism student or someone who’s recently graduated and would be interested in contributing to Media Darlings, please feel free to drop me an email. Cheers!

I usually try to keep things local here at Media Darlings, but I want to make a special exception for the war of words triggered by the Israeli Defence Force’s raid on a humanitarian convoy this week.

This is not a political blog, so let me just say this in advance as a reporter: There was a well-publicised humanitarian aid convoy whose members included European legislators, former US diplomats, an international group of journalists and at one point a Holocaust survivor. The Shayetet went in with guns, nine people died, thirty were injured and now the IDF won’t return the journalists’ footage of what happened. Any authority which withholds evidence of a fatal incident is going to look incredibly suspect, IDF or otherwise.

Anyway.

Much of the Israeli hasbara, or PR offensive, has been absurd (the group I described above were supposedly arms smugglers and/or mercenaries) and often contradictory (said arms smugglers/mercenaries were attacking with kitchen knives rather than guns). But only one reporter I’ve seen so far has managed to report an absurdity as fact and then contradict it in the same article. Congratulations, Ron Friedman of the Jerusalem Post:

IDF: Flotilla Supplies Unnecessary

In a statement to reporters at the port on Tuesday, Col. Moshe Levi, commander of the IDF’s Gaza Strip Coordination and Liaison Administration, said that none of the equipment found on board the three cargo ships was in shortage in Gaza.

“We have been working non-stop for the last 24 hours, examining the cargo holds of the three large cargo ships, and I can say with great assurance that none of the equipment on board is needed in Gaza. The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the Strip over the past year,” Levi said.

“This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole premise of the voyage was for propaganda and provocation and not for humanitarian purposes.”

Four short paragraphs later:

The soldiers also found construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods. Levi said that Israel did not allow those products to enter the Gaza Strip for fear that they would be used to build fortifications for terrorists and to make weapons.

Guys, listen: there are two sides to every story, sure, but you’re only supposed to have one each.

There’s a famous saying attributed to Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to look like bloody big chumps and confirm every negative perception of their industry”. Or something like that.

Anyway, shame on the New Zealand Herald. On Monday – the very same day they ran NZPA’s recap of the incredibly sketchy relationship between Imperial Tobacco and the Association of Community Retailers – they also ran an opinion piece by Roger Bull of the Association of Convenience Stores. You know, Glenn Inwood’s other pro-tobacco client. It’s an audacious if predictable piece of damage control:

The puritanical drive to rid New Zealand of tobacco products may well be labelled as “nanny state”, as it underlines a more ominous undercurrent.

And that is that a very vocal few end up telling adult New Zealanders what products they can or can’t buy, with complete disregard for the notion of consumer freedom or personal responsibility.

Add to this that any opponent to their way of thinking is labelled “in the pocket of big business” and therefore cannot be trusted.

Except in this case, the opponents are in the pocket of big business, and I don’t just mean the ACR – As Keith Ng found, Bull’s organisation even lists British American and Imperial Tobacco as “premier members” on their website.

Not that anyone told the Herald‘s readers. Here’s the disclaimer that accompanied the op-ed:

Roger Bull is chairman of the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 769 stores across New Zealand.

That’s it in its entirety. It’s bad enough that the Herald‘s staff apparently did nothing at all to check a pro-tobacco group’s industry ties while printing a series of stories about a pro-tobacco group’s industry ties, but I emailed the Herald Online’s newsroom about this yesterday at 10am. A day later there’s been no response, no change to the online article and no clarification or correction in today’s print edition either.

Shameful. And by the way, feel free to let them know about it here or here.

“The association does not have a relationship with tobacco companies, and nor did Stay Displays as far as I’m aware.” – Denielle Boulieris, Association of Community Retailers

“As far as I am aware, the Association does not get any funding from Imperial Tobacco. Glenn might with his hats; he might get paid by Imperial Tobacco, but that’s his business” – Richard Green, Association of Community Retailers

“Imperial Tobacco has not funded, or directly funded, the ACR” – Glenn Innwood, Omeka Communications

But it turns out Imperial Tobacco finally broke its silence at last fortnight’s Maori Affairs Select Committee hearing. Michael Colhoun of ASH and Colin Peacock of Mediawatch were good enough to nab me a partial transcript of Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway grilling Tony Meirs, Imperial Tobacco’s NZ sales and marketing director:

Lees-Galloway: Could you give us a little bit more detail about your relationship to the Association of Community Retailers?

Meirs: The issue here is that small retailers are concerned that some of the regulations being considered would damage the viability of their business.  Retailers want to speak out to protect their livelihood, and we support retailers in that aim.  So we have provided PR resource through Omeka Public Relations company to help small retailers develop the voice that they need to protect their business from unnecessary regulation.

Lees-Galloway: Aye?

Meirs: To protect their business from unnecessary regulation. Actually we’re not talking about anything else but cigarette sales, we’re talking about the ability to keep cigarettes in the carousels -

Lees-Galloway: What else has the ACR actually lobbied, what other issues has the ACR engaged in, or is their only issue tobacco displays and tobacco products?

Meirs: My understanding is that they are concerned with all the issues that effect small retailers, and we support them in that aim.  Why shouldn’t they have a voice to speak out and toprotect their businesses?  It’s entirely right that they can put the contra argument, and I’m proud to support those retailers.

Lees-Galloway: Would you support health promoters who want to put up the counter argument, because it’s entirely right that they get the opportunity to do that?

Meirs: I think it’s entirely right that they get the opportunity to put their argument forward.

Lees-Galloway: Would you support them to do that, if someone made the approach, do you think you’d be able to support them?

Meirs: It would be hypocritical and wrong to take a position on both sides.

Lees-Galloway: What is the extent of, what’s the value of your support of ACR?

Meirs: The value is through providing PR resource to help them develop the voice they need to protect their business.

Lees-Galloway: Well what’s that value to them, how much would they have to spend to get the same resource that you’re providing them?

Meirs: I don’t know.

Lees-Galloway: And this is purely out of the interest of promoting personal choice and freedom, and supporting the retailers?  There’s no benefit for you at all?

Meirs: This is our way of helping those retailers protect their business against unnecessary regulations that will be ineffective.  We’re helping them to develop a voice.

Lees-Galloway: Do you think that if the ACR was successful in achieving its aims, that that would be beneficial to your company?

Meirs: Well through the questions that I’ve answered so far I’ve been clear about where we stand.  I don’t support the banning of displays for the reasons that I’ve said.

Lees-Galloway: You’ve said that you don’t support various things because you think they would do no good.  But do you think your company would be better off if ACR achieved its aims?

Meirs: Competition would remain in the industry and I’m for that, I’m for competition.  Adult smokers would still be able to make a choice to select from products and brands available, and I’m for that.

Lees-Galloway: Would your company be any better off if the ACR achieved its aims?

Meirs: In what sense?

Lees-Galloway: Would it be financially better off?

Meirs: I can’t say that, I don’t know, because whether Imperial Tobacco would be financially better off or not depends on how we compete in the marketplace, how we compete for adult smokers.  So it’s just, the 2 just aren’t linked.  I support the position of those retailers wanting to develop a voice, wanting to put their argument forward to protect their businesses from unnecessary regulation.

In any case today’s post ranges from the tenuously topical to the breathtakingly cynical with my personal highlights from Thursday’s Budget blather:

DoC to develop cycleways and camp grounds

Cool, I guess. So, is that from DoC itself? Maybe an outdoor recreation group? Nope; apparently that’s the best thing Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson had to say about her portfolio. That’s it? No talk of marine reserves? No breeding programmes, no pristine Antarctic wilderness? No, y’know, conservation issues?

Providing quality outdoor recreational facilities and opportunities is a Government priority and developing new campgrounds was part of our election manifesto.

Fair enough; I too remember that infamous Colmar-Brunton poll on picnic tables. Oh dear. Meanwhile…

Increase in GST means less available for community

…Which sounds like a worthy news angle, until you realise it’s courtesy of the Community Gaming Association, who represent over 30% of the pokies industry. These selfless philanthropists fear that the rise in GST will hurt their addicted clientele shareholder returns in a $6.1b industry the poor little tykes in the under-15s.

In addition to GST the Government already takes 20% of net revenue as a Gaming Duty, more than 1.5% as a Problem Gambling Levy and about another 1%-2% as fees for monitoring, licensing and compliance activities by the Department of Internal Affairs.

The Class 4 gambling sector has always paid its way. Now the Government intends to take more. The only place this can come from is the share of proceeds which goes back to the community.

Incredible. And eerily familiar, too…

Last, and most certainly least, Bob McCoskrie on…climate change?

ETS Will Cancel Benefit of Budget to Families

“NZ families are being penalised by a tax that will have no affect whatsoever on the climate, and amidst mounting evidence that the science behind global warming is not settled. The ETS will simply increase the financial pressures on families and negate all the benefit of today’s budget.”

Oh, Bob. Shine on, you crazy, attention-seeking, shamelessly dissembling diamond.