Dalai - don't believe the herald is bias?

Read this article:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10538260

Note the first paragraph and the association. Then read the second one.

Also note the context of the headline in relation to the second paragraph.

lets highlight it for those who might not pick up on it.

"he also met National's John Key and donated another $5000 to that party"

Side point, but the Herald on Sunday is run completely seperately from the daily Herald...

you're dreaming if you don't think they follow the same editorial direction.

I'm confused, why does the Herald On Sunday have anything to do with this?
But yes, they are run pretty much as two seperate business. Different writers, editors etc.

couldn't believe it when I saw this today - how retarded...

Why does the Herald want National in power? less business taxes or something?

I guess dodgy businessman giving 5k to Labour is going to sell more papers than dodgy businessman gives 5k to National

i'm assuming it's the front page of todays deadtree edition.

i personally think it's a bit of a moot point even if they are staffed differently. for all intents and purposes, it's the same paper.

Should someone commenting on a newspaper article know the difference between a verb and an adjective?

Should someone commenting on someone commenting on a newspaper article not know how to construct a sentence? :>

See this is why editing functions suck, you pick up a mistake and fix it and some cunt comes in and quotes you at the same time!



*refrains from using magic moderator powers to fix it up 'cause its quite funny

let's highlight the connection shall we?


Labour? government? dubious grant of immigration?

and of course I loved this





some of you lot need to assess your own bias - the herald merely sets the record straight - it's you who distort things

So a Chinese businessman, used to doing business in China, which means paying off and being friendly with local politicians, comes and plays the same game in New Zealand.

He donates to, meets with and throws dinners for every major political party.

The Herald uses the headline "Millionaire gives $5000 to Labour"

And somehow NR, you think everyone ELSE is showing bias?

Getting a character witness statement from a doctor, lawyer, accountant, JP, MINISTER OF PARLIAMENT is generally considered a pretty bloody good statement when the department is considering it. There's not much else to it? He's a smart guy, if I wanted residency in the states, i'd be stoked to get one from a senator or governor, in fact i'd be dancing around with it in my hand!

The point is, if you're trying to spin this as government corruption you refer to them as "The Government", if you're electioneering, you refer to them as Labour, and specifically target them in your major headline!

the thing is the story broke yesterday and he didn't donate the money to the government but to Labour, the party in power as well as to National as the story points out

but since Labour has campaigned on trust and this is a trust issue it's fair to highlight them

hoist on their own petard re the leak too I might add

one more thing - don't make any assumptions as to his innocence; you have no more idea than I if he is or isn't

lol so the thread gets relegated from the lounge to here

oh so by extension they should have described National as Her Majesty's loyal opposition?

yeah right

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

nothing's happened to it but he's been charged with something and until that is resolved one cannot assume he is guilty or innocent and to interpolate what andrew did, while superficially plausible, is unsubstantiated by any facts at our disposal

And you have done the complete reverse, even if you don't specifically say it, it's quite obvious in your post.

Setting the record straight =/= to believing btw.

the record being straight I should say was that they also mentioned National had benefited from his largesse as did others, not that the accuracy of the charges against him were to be relied upon; merely that he had been charged - I don't see the Herald stating that he was guilty

I would also posit this scenario

what if he were a corrupt businessman such as we read of and the Chinese govt were after him in their campaign to stamp out corruption and improve the image of China abroad?

where would you stand then?

That both parties are equally guilty.

The herald deliberately tried to slant Labour as receiving money exclusively (look at the screenshot I posted). The headline isn't 'Top Political Parties Receive $5000 from Millionaire', it's 'Millionaire Gives $5000 to Labour'.

You cannot deny that is biased. Even more so considering that the future leader of the National Party was the person who received his donation.

National can play dumb, but Labour can't apparently. This is made blatantly evident in this paragraph:

'National's Pansy Wong and John Key had met him twice for lunch before the 2005 election, but both said they had been unaware of the allegations against Liu.'

I love it how Labour supporters jump up and down over things like this but back in '99 when the press most definitely favoured them they were silent or now if there's a bad headline for National or Key, as there has been in the Herald of late, or a leak from the opposition they chuckle and chortle and have no problems with the 'press bias'.

Like I said before they are campaigning on trust so expect the press to put the blowtorch on them.

Also I'd like to point out that the Sunday Herald carries Matt McCarten's column under the by-line left wing view in the dead tree edition. This no doubt so as to not cause undue palpitations to the blue rinse Remuera matricians.

National MP says small handed workers needed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10538807

that's it I'm tearing up my subscription to the revolution

biased indeed!

well does it really matter when your comments help promote a nz herald article ...?