Diva Strangelove
Can it be long before we see a journalist "embedded" in Guyton Street?
No, we don't mean buried beneath the roadway. We mean the modern military strategem of having a reporter from a supposedly independent media organisation attached semi-permanently to a troop unit.
While the media first thought they were going to have unrivalled access to the front lines, what actually happened was that the reporters understandably became friends with the soliders with whom they shared foxholes, and sent back stirring tales of "our boys" derring-do. Meanwhile, the non-embedded journalists back at HQ were kept subdued by pretty pictures of "smart" bombs going down chimneys.
As a result it's widely acknowledged that reportage on the Gulf War (I or II) was in fact less truthful than, say, the footage we (eventually) saw from Vietnam or even World War II.
What has this to do with Wanganui, you ask?
Well, Field Marshall the Diva Michael Laws (to give him his full title) is certainly familiar with information management. Here, for instance, is the purpose of information as defined in a military context (in this case, Bosnia-Herzegovina):
The Role of Information
Gain and maintain public supportGoing on to explain the close co-ordination between the army PR people and PSYOPS (i.e. the brainwashing crowd) this paper goes on to note:
Exert “media diplomacy”pressure adversariesInfluence local population
encourage alliesby selective release of information
...the use of information as a 'non-lethal weapon system'... At headquarters level (as well as in some divisions), information was systematically used to reinforce the appropriateness of IFOR’s activities. For example, MND (SW) commander often relied on press statements to lay blame publicly on the factions who violated the DPA to pressure them to comply. Information was always on the commander’s mind as one of his major tools for action. CJ3 was constantly aware of the possibility to use the media..."
The Diva's handling of the Audit Office report into the entire Port of Wanganui saga surely suggests it can't be long before Sean Hoskins, or someone from the Chron newsroom, is sent off, hard hat in hand, to "embed" themselves at City Hall.
The Report was selectively released to the Chron - via fax, so no chance anyone might press that pesky "forward" key on the email, and with the Diva's spin, just prior to deadline. And so duly appeared as a relatively small story because space was tight. As it always is in a Saturday newspaper, as the Mayor well knows.
We're not being critical of the Chron here - it got the news, it ran with it, and it gave it as much space as it could. The newsroom isn't staffed or funded to undertake critical analysis of complex reports - specially not in a short space of time - and there's a natural tendency to at least start whatever analysis can be done from the perspective of the spin you've been given. Nevertheless, the eventual report doesn't make any Council look particularly good - so what might the unvarnished version tell us?
Neither the Council nor the Audit Office have opted to make the entire report available to the public, and it's pointless expecting Port of Wanganui Limited (whose commitment to openness equals that of the Diva) to tell us either.
Since some pro-Diva commenters seem to love the scorecard approach to politics, let's summarise the results of that approach:
- Laws - 1
- Open government and informed discussion - 0
While we're talking open government, don't forget the first batch of questions under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act go in on Monday. Already we have some interesting questions, one even pre-dating the present Council. So let's have your contributions to our special LGOIA address: LetsAskMichael@bigfoot.com
Comments on this post are now closed.
41 comments:
Either my eyeglasses are much worse than I thought (very possible because I bought them in Marton) or ... the print on the opening item is too small to read. Could you fix the glitch? Ta mutchly.
Working on it... HTML *mutter* Stupid Blogger... *mutter*...
Fixed... if you're still seeing impossibly tiny print, please hold down yor "shift" key and click your browser's "refresh" or "reload" key - this will flush your cache (not nearly as painful as it sounds) and load a completely new copy of the page. Apologies to those who thought they were going blind (for whatever reason).
By hook or by crook,
All history shows,
Information will out,
But spin it around,
All you have found,
Is that telling fibs makes people pout,
Now put it together,
No matter however,
Bad it is,
Perhaps good,
We shall see,
But we'll see anyway,
At the end of the day!
Selective spinning?
For this you will pay.
TAPLOL
I think your analysis is astray on the Audit Office/Port release.
For a start, the mayor would stand to reap maximum bangs-for-bucks from making a big deal about the report, not in hoping it would sink. This report, on what I read in the Chronicle this morning, falls nicely into his anti-old boys/girls crusade. And there is not one shred of blame attached to this mayor or Vision-council. When you have Bill Pearce on your side, then you're on the side of the good guys.
Second, I don't know when the mayor received this report but did the other councillors have copies? From the moment that happened he would want to have controlled the release and ensured the Chronicle got it before it was leaked. (say, here)
As a keen observor of council affairs over many years, I will say this. If the last council had received it they would have hidden it forever.
Could you ask Bill - when did he get his copy of the audit report? I'm assuming from his comments this morning that he was the complainant so he would have got it at the same time as the mayor.
The score card should read (if you're going to have one);
Laws - one
Old Boys - nil.
Which begs the question. Who were the Ocean Terminal directors? Any one know? And where did that $7 million of ratepayers contribution go?
The scorecard might also read:
Old boys: 0
PoW: 1
Laws - watching from the sidelines, but desperate to get into the game somehow.
You're right. But this time he managed it and POW's cred departed long ago. Not bad when you get the credit for someone ele's victory.
Game's not over yet.
As a rate-payer I would be appalled at paying for any of the damage caused on Thursday night at City Hall.
What happened on Thursday night @ City Hall?
Ever thought of a dateblog?
Single people, united in their disdain of the mayor and this council? It would be like finding out if someone liked kids or not - an immediate common identity.
Some office toys got broken.
Single? Who's single, my partners watching the bloody ruby!
Ever thought of a dateblog?
Oh dear god... you people... reproducing?! We couldn't be held responsible for the outcome.
Yes, I heard last week was not a good week to be in city hall.
So why doesn't someone post some details of how bad it was?
Yeah, come on. What are the details? Or is it just another stupid attempt to con this blog's readers?? I'd opt for the latter.
I bet latter too.
That's what pisses me off avbout this blog. The policy discussions - even on personalities - is good & often enlightening. But then we get the shit posters (on both sides) who are snide & bitter arseholes. They make stuff up.
As the mayor might say, F*** off nutters to other newsgroups & take your baggage with you. This is a forum for grown-ups.
Well, we better all start acting like 'grow ups' with council property.
Dickhead.
The abusers don't ruin the blog: just read around them.
I too heard today that the mayoral office had been vandalized, various pieces of equipment and furniture were damaged, and had to be replaced the next day. So I'd like to know first, if it's true and second, who might have had access to the office?. Maybe the Chron should follow up.
Which begs the question. Who were the Ocean Terminal directors? Any one know? And where did that $7 million of ratepayers contribution go?
Prior to Ocean Terminals ( a privately owned company that essentially grew from Port users), leasing the port there was a ratepayer funded Harbour Board. Rates ceased to be levied after OTL took over. They were paid about $280,000 pa from Endowment Funds. Most of this would have been spent on dredging,and paying a HarbourMaster.They certainly would'nt have been making a fortune out of it. The Audit Office report is critical of previous councils lack of monitoring of the $280,000 pa I guess.There is some truth in this -
but it's silly to talk of corruption. No one has made a lot of money out of the Port of Wanganui over the last ten years at least.
You're right: no-one is talking corruption just general mismanagement which is what the Audit Office said and the charge levied against Chas et al.
On the vandalism - work at council and that's bullshit.
Corruption? Incompetence?
Whichever it is, Council are/were responsible.
I have no confidence in them.
Vandalism bullshit? Or covered up quickly? Probably bullshit, but we appear to have two opposing sources. The allegation is pretty specific.
If it's untrue it amounts to vandalism on this blog: spreading lies.
One way or another there's a lot of malice around.
Important difference between corruption & incompetemnce & if there had been the earlier, then Audit would have found it. As Bill Pearce said, you can't blame the current mayor. It's landed right in his lap because of councils from 1998 to 2004 wasting our money. Not a good look.
On the vandalism: the lie is from that person who put it here. All of council would know if true (you can't hide stuff like that) and we don't.
Malice? Hmmm. That's what Sean said.
Which begs the question: who would bother to waste their time this way? I assume we were meant to think that Laws had smashed up his own office. Or that someone from Council, perhaps acting from some sort of misguided sense of civic duty, had done so.
What an elaborate lie, and how pointless considering the lie would be revealed immediately. Time for our anonymous rumour-monger to put up or shut up.
Councillors can only set policy: council officers then implement that policy. So what startling new policy will Council now reveal to sort the Port?
I suppose that's why the mayor set up this new harbour committee and put Dahya and Bullock in there to sort it out. Looking at that committee tho' it includes I note the mayor, deputy and Graeme Taylor. Fairly high-powered, theyre planning somerthing.
It's funny, though, because, according to the LGA, they're supposed to listen to and implement the will of the District, not pull startling new policy out of the hat all the time.
I don't understand the difference between what this Council and any previous Council have been landed with re the port. There has been very little tonnage thru the Port since the 60's. Chas Poynter always put up the case that by abolishing the Harbour Board and leasing it to OTL harbour rates ceased, and he's correct on that point. I very much doubt that Laws would have done it differently at the time. Just what is this alleged "incompetence" all about, nothing printed by the Chron explains it. I find the Laws spin of continually alleging incompetence in Chas's council, although predictable, is now past its use by date. They were even blamed for the forestry prices crashing. It's now time to actually do something ,rather than just try to make himself look like a white knight coming to the rescue.
Which begs the question: have all Councillors (esp. Harbour cttee) received copies of this report, or not?
Has Michael "arranged to have copies couriered to them"?
When do you suppose Vision will meet to discuss it?
Ask ray.
If it was discussed by council, then you know Uncle Ray wouldn't have been there. But Audit aren't that secretive so they must have given council a draft or something to respond to.
At the risk of giving the vision crowd any fodder.
If I follow all this right Pam Williams was on the port and got millions from it when her company Ocean Terminals was bought out. She was also on the gallery fundraising committee. So how come the fundraisers were only able to raise peanuts ($35,000 I think it was?). Every member of the trust board must have been good for $10,000 each? To her even $50,000 would have been peanuts.
I know it isnt fair to target individuals but surely a reasonable job at fundraising would have made the job of selling the extension much easier. Likewise the trust board could have agreed to underwrite any shortfalls rather than Council. if they had been more active then construction would have already started!
210 thousand already raised, plus 2.6 million from government ready to pick up, 500 thousand from Power -co., about 150 thousand from the Community Trust and some more from the Henry's S.Trust it's self. But that's only from my recall. So they weren't doing that badly.
Laws' "figures" (mythic million etc.) were in fact worst case scenario bullshit. A cynical piece of vandalism, compounded by the destruction of the SGTB.
The Sarjeant Gallery Trust Board still exists on paper. All it requires is credible volunteers, and there are plenty of those, and for Council to come to its senses and realise that it is ill-equipped to manage art collections. What expertise they can draw on, as can be seen from meeting minutes, is implacably opposed to any sale of artworks, and there are constant reminders of how unfair it is to deny the Sarjeant:
a. Funds and
b. The means of raising them by its own endeavours.
It smacks of classic Rogernomics - run down public services 'til they don't work, then claim they're inefficient and flog them to the highest bidder. How ironic that the last gasp of Ruthenasia would be perpretrated in Wanganui by the man who used to advocate euthenasia.
Post a Comment