If you look at the Integrity Institutes' register you will see Action Station, CTU, Forest & Bird, Greenpeace Helen Clark Foundation and PSA listed. Although the information about these 'left wing' groups does not show the deviousness and deception of the Dirty Politics players like Taxpayers Union, etc.
Yes, I think the difference is that these are largely leftwing groups (except perhaps Forest & Bird) which are quite obviously so, and campaign with their real names. Unions of course are habitually left-wing. What Bryce is pointing to is the TPU /TCC's habit of pretending some campaigns they've set up have a grassroots origin, when they're really astroturfs.
Perhaps we should add the New Zealand Labour Party to the list of influencers as they donated funds to the press with the creation of the Public Interest Journalist Fund. These funds were available as long as the press ran articles that followed adherence to certain perspectives, particularly regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. This influenced editorial content enormously.
In addition, if the press ran articles that were not acceptable to the Labour Party's interpretation of the Treaty, then according to the PIJF agreement money had to be repaid.
This is pure evil in terms an underhand attempt to influence the initially unsuspecting public who initially thought that the press was reporting fact, not the opinion of the left wing.
Please tell me why this PIJF and the influencing that it attempted via the press is different to the activity of the Campaign Company?
This Public Interest Journalist Fund that you describe is substantially different to the actual Public Interest Journalist Fund which was created by the Labour government.
I'd have assumed this was Williams's lot as he generally works for right-wing clients. But that's because I started being alert to what he does, from the Groundswell Campaign and the 'Save Our Stores' on: that last was especially misleading in its 'grassroots' image, and was funded by some of the worst businesses out. The astroturfs to look out for in the next few months are those relating to the local body elections. I was alerted to the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance back in the last round, when a Labour Council candidate I know was upset about being represented on that site as lazy. She is anything but. I found myself blocked after defending her, and took the issue up with those in charge, saying that Jordan Williams as co-founder of the Free Speech Union wouldn't have approved of blocking. They let me back on, and more or less admitted to being an astroturf. Of course the site opposed Efeso Collins's mayoral bid, although not as stridently as it did council candidates they saw as 'woke'.
Good on them....somebody needs to publicize the truth since the left wing media spout such rubbish. I am very grateful to them. Your article is fear mongering and divisive!
Where is your evidence that mainstream media is left wing? This is part of the woke right wing narrative gushing out of the USA and picked up by uncritical crusaders in NZ. I read NZ mainstream media regularly along with a number of social media platforms and I can identify numerous opinion pieces that support smaller government, individual property rights before common good, lower taxes etc. Yes there are writers that I would describe as progressive rather than left wing or Marxist as some would claim. In addition, most media is owned by conservative business interests and shareholders who want to avoid like the plague their papers or outlets being labelled left wing. However, up to now there has been a willingness by these owners to support editorial independence unlike in the USA or other countries in which MSM is very clearly and openly divided into left and right.
Whoops - it sounds/looks like you just outed yourself
How do you justify the lack of trust( or lack there of) in MSM?in recent survey
How do you justify the lack of MSM support for paid ads from some groups ?
How do you justify the $$'s handed out by the Labour Party?
How do you justify the growth of NBR and its level of Trust?
The trust given to MSM just shows how strong the MSM is ,as most people don't understand that they are, in fact, biased
Social media is a 'no no" for those who prefer balanced media
USA President has just been voted in by the voters of that country,. that gives the people voted in some sort of support. the question is - how long will that last?. He seems to have broken a good view rules in international relations - but i can see his reasons as USA has been used and abused for many decades by many countries
I don't support it but I can see why he does . We won't see for a while whether it prevails or dies
Why do you not see Trump as Progressive ??? - your definition of progressive seems to be biased in its self
Good start to the week
I still think an article that balances out the right wing vies with the contrary perspective would be very useful for a balanced perspective
"Where is your evidence that mainstream media is left wing?" I think ignoring the Benjamin Doyle story and then, when it broke on social media, outing the person behind it is evidence that at least some parts of the mainstream media are left-wing.
There are many realities for different people and not one. And as with everything, complex issues cannot be reduced to simple solutions or a right left view of the world. At present in many parts of the world “strong” leaders are offering these simplistic solutions and blaming opposing politicians and the woke for every problem. Many people facing daily struggles, a rapidly changing and under pressure world, are turning to these charlatans. History never exactly repeats itself but there are clear parallels with other times in human history when this has happened.
That’s a lot to reply to on a Sunday night especially as Country Calendar is on soon. One simple point while trust is important in a democracy, deciding on any issue is about thinking for yourself, triangulating sources, checking authority, asking about the balance between opinion and facts or data, looking for bias, recognising we all have biases etc. Social media platforms love bias as it drives clicks and therefore $ and in the main does not promote in depth debate.
Any fool can fire 'shots from the dark'. But in the end he couldn't help but gloat, and out himself in the process. The takeaway point is that we all know who NOT to listen to in the future; a professional 'liar', a spreader of disinformation and falsehoods, and a thoroughly ugly and unpleasant person. I bet he loves and admires Trump ...
Curia Research fits very much into this mould. It claims to be a professional independent ressarch company, but the list of clients casts some doubts on that. Why would Family First want to pay for a survey on the use of puberty blockers if it did not know in advance that the findings would support their cause? Why would Wellington Airport want to pay for a survey on the Golden Mile if it did not know in advance that the results would support their cause. Both of those Curia surveys were the subject of Complaints to the Research Association of New Zealand who upheld complaints that they did not meet their Code of Practice (which Curia claimed to follow). The most egregious example was the Curia survey done for the Free Speech Union that failed to report that there was only 2.8% response rate making the results meaningless. As a result of a complaint to RANZ on this and the other two surveys Curia resigned from RANZ and claimed they were the subject of weaponised complaints. Curia polls use "online panels" and Landlines" with no detail as to how they recruit their sample. They claim margins of error that are based on premise that the sample is random...which it is not. Their political polling funnily enough always seem to find a more R of centre response than other polls. For three consecutive polls they had exactly the same number of non-respondents. Political polls done for political parties or for legacy news outlets have an incentive to get them as close to reality as possible. TPU have an incentive for their poll to screw the narrative to influence the outcome.
Thanks for that info
Can we now have a similar summary of the left wing 'whose who' of left wing, socialist, etc people who lobbying in the shadows
That would give us all a balanced view of what's happening in the media market place
Thanks very much
Regards
Robin Martin
Can you give some examples of this that you think need investigation?
No I can't
That is why I have asked the expert??
If you look at the Integrity Institutes' register you will see Action Station, CTU, Forest & Bird, Greenpeace Helen Clark Foundation and PSA listed. Although the information about these 'left wing' groups does not show the deviousness and deception of the Dirty Politics players like Taxpayers Union, etc.
Yes, I think the difference is that these are largely leftwing groups (except perhaps Forest & Bird) which are quite obviously so, and campaign with their real names. Unions of course are habitually left-wing. What Bryce is pointing to is the TPU /TCC's habit of pretending some campaigns they've set up have a grassroots origin, when they're really astroturfs.
Thanks for answering my question:
David
David’s Substack
6h
Is The Helen Clark Foundation on the register?
There are no left wing lobbyists just pretenders. Action Station is one.
Perhaps we should add the New Zealand Labour Party to the list of influencers as they donated funds to the press with the creation of the Public Interest Journalist Fund. These funds were available as long as the press ran articles that followed adherence to certain perspectives, particularly regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. This influenced editorial content enormously.
In addition, if the press ran articles that were not acceptable to the Labour Party's interpretation of the Treaty, then according to the PIJF agreement money had to be repaid.
This is pure evil in terms an underhand attempt to influence the initially unsuspecting public who initially thought that the press was reporting fact, not the opinion of the left wing.
Please tell me why this PIJF and the influencing that it attempted via the press is different to the activity of the Campaign Company?
This Public Interest Journalist Fund that you describe is substantially different to the actual Public Interest Journalist Fund which was created by the Labour government.
How is it different?
Thanks Bryce for revealing who is behind these deceitful campaigns and bringing them out of the shadows. A service for democracy.
I'd have assumed this was Williams's lot as he generally works for right-wing clients. But that's because I started being alert to what he does, from the Groundswell Campaign and the 'Save Our Stores' on: that last was especially misleading in its 'grassroots' image, and was funded by some of the worst businesses out. The astroturfs to look out for in the next few months are those relating to the local body elections. I was alerted to the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance back in the last round, when a Labour Council candidate I know was upset about being represented on that site as lazy. She is anything but. I found myself blocked after defending her, and took the issue up with those in charge, saying that Jordan Williams as co-founder of the Free Speech Union wouldn't have approved of blocking. They let me back on, and more or less admitted to being an astroturf. Of course the site opposed Efeso Collins's mayoral bid, although not as stridently as it did council candidates they saw as 'woke'.
Good on them....somebody needs to publicize the truth since the left wing media spout such rubbish. I am very grateful to them. Your article is fear mongering and divisive!
Where is your evidence that mainstream media is left wing? This is part of the woke right wing narrative gushing out of the USA and picked up by uncritical crusaders in NZ. I read NZ mainstream media regularly along with a number of social media platforms and I can identify numerous opinion pieces that support smaller government, individual property rights before common good, lower taxes etc. Yes there are writers that I would describe as progressive rather than left wing or Marxist as some would claim. In addition, most media is owned by conservative business interests and shareholders who want to avoid like the plague their papers or outlets being labelled left wing. However, up to now there has been a willingness by these owners to support editorial independence unlike in the USA or other countries in which MSM is very clearly and openly divided into left and right.
Whoops - it sounds/looks like you just outed yourself
How do you justify the lack of trust( or lack there of) in MSM?in recent survey
How do you justify the lack of MSM support for paid ads from some groups ?
How do you justify the $$'s handed out by the Labour Party?
How do you justify the growth of NBR and its level of Trust?
The trust given to MSM just shows how strong the MSM is ,as most people don't understand that they are, in fact, biased
Social media is a 'no no" for those who prefer balanced media
USA President has just been voted in by the voters of that country,. that gives the people voted in some sort of support. the question is - how long will that last?. He seems to have broken a good view rules in international relations - but i can see his reasons as USA has been used and abused for many decades by many countries
I don't support it but I can see why he does . We won't see for a while whether it prevails or dies
Why do you not see Trump as Progressive ??? - your definition of progressive seems to be biased in its self
Good start to the week
I still think an article that balances out the right wing vies with the contrary perspective would be very useful for a balanced perspective
"Where is your evidence that mainstream media is left wing?" I think ignoring the Benjamin Doyle story and then, when it broke on social media, outing the person behind it is evidence that at least some parts of the mainstream media are left-wing.
Well said Philip
You are blind to reality mate.
There are many realities for different people and not one. And as with everything, complex issues cannot be reduced to simple solutions or a right left view of the world. At present in many parts of the world “strong” leaders are offering these simplistic solutions and blaming opposing politicians and the woke for every problem. Many people facing daily struggles, a rapidly changing and under pressure world, are turning to these charlatans. History never exactly repeats itself but there are clear parallels with other times in human history when this has happened.
That’s a lot to reply to on a Sunday night especially as Country Calendar is on soon. One simple point while trust is important in a democracy, deciding on any issue is about thinking for yourself, triangulating sources, checking authority, asking about the balance between opinion and facts or data, looking for bias, recognising we all have biases etc. Social media platforms love bias as it drives clicks and therefore $ and in the main does not promote in depth debate.
Great work Bryce.
What a sleazy, sordid, little fellow he is.
Any fool can fire 'shots from the dark'. But in the end he couldn't help but gloat, and out himself in the process. The takeaway point is that we all know who NOT to listen to in the future; a professional 'liar', a spreader of disinformation and falsehoods, and a thoroughly ugly and unpleasant person. I bet he loves and admires Trump ...
Is The Helen Clark Foundation on the register?
Or the Health Coalition Aotearoadcone?
Curia Research fits very much into this mould. It claims to be a professional independent ressarch company, but the list of clients casts some doubts on that. Why would Family First want to pay for a survey on the use of puberty blockers if it did not know in advance that the findings would support their cause? Why would Wellington Airport want to pay for a survey on the Golden Mile if it did not know in advance that the results would support their cause. Both of those Curia surveys were the subject of Complaints to the Research Association of New Zealand who upheld complaints that they did not meet their Code of Practice (which Curia claimed to follow). The most egregious example was the Curia survey done for the Free Speech Union that failed to report that there was only 2.8% response rate making the results meaningless. As a result of a complaint to RANZ on this and the other two surveys Curia resigned from RANZ and claimed they were the subject of weaponised complaints. Curia polls use "online panels" and Landlines" with no detail as to how they recruit their sample. They claim margins of error that are based on premise that the sample is random...which it is not. Their political polling funnily enough always seem to find a more R of centre response than other polls. For three consecutive polls they had exactly the same number of non-respondents. Political polls done for political parties or for legacy news outlets have an incentive to get them as close to reality as possible. TPU have an incentive for their poll to screw the narrative to influence the outcome.
Thanks Bryce. The 'save our stores' was very slick and difficult to unpick.
Hiding in plain sight good to connect the dots.
Thank you - fantastic work.
These people are just vermin of the lowest order.