Applications to appoint liquidators and notices announcing which firms had been placed into receivership was what I was after. Those pages also held enticing ads for ladies of negotiable affection and inducements to invest in that week’s hot investment opportunity.
Now. I’ve lived a life. I understand the difference between an advertisement and news reporting. With the arrival of colour in news print the imagery for Chloe, Candy and Chantelle would seek to engage a willing suspension of disbelief. As did the First Ranking Debenture offers of 9.95% return.
It was all misdirection. We all know the game. You pay your money and take your chances.
Last week the advocacy group Hobson’s Pledge stumped up with the cash required to wrap the Herald in advertising advancing their belief that iwi claims under the Marine and Coastal Are (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 could limit access to the beaches around the country; Restore the Foreshore and Seabed to Public Ownership.
Helpfully, in case anyone was uncertain, there was a disclaimer advising readers that this was an advertisement paid for by Hobson’s Pledge.
Last week the advocacy group Hobson’s Pledge stumped up with the cash required to wrap the Herald in advertising advancing their belief that iwi claims under the Marine and Coastal Are (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 could limit access to the beaches around the country; Restore the Foreshore and Seabed to Public Ownership.
Helpfully, in case anyone was uncertain, there was a disclaimer advising readers that this was an advertisement paid for by Hobson’s Pledge.
Now. I do not want to get into the specifics of the claim being made. Not yet anyway, but before we go further; did you know about this issue until now?
I was vaguely aware of it because I’m kind of interested in these sorts of things but as I type this I’m not over the details; and that is the point.
Dr Don Brash and his team feel this is an important subject and are willing to spend their money to bring it to your attention. Fair enough. Which is why the reaction to the ad was disappointing.
A group of legally focused organisations, including the Māori Law Society and the Auckland Women Law Association, circulated a petition that attracted several hundred legal signatures. They challenged the claims made by Hobson’s Pledge and outlined where they think the ad was mistaken.
There is some hubris in this approach because it implies their arguments carry more weight because they are lawyers. The appeal to authority fallacy can be forgiven when committed by a profession that relies on precedents, but good on them for getting into the debate.
Where they, and others such as Waatea News who terminated a content-sharing arrangement with the Herald, have erred is in placing pressure on the paper when it comes to who should be permitted to carry advertising. This strategy was successful as Hobson’s Pledge had a follow-up ad cancelled and other advocacy groups such as the TaxPayers Union (of which I am a member) have found the paper is less accommodating.
This isn’t, in my view, a free speech issue. NZME, the owner of the Herald, is a private company. No one has a right to advertise their wares, ideas or policies in a private newspaper. In a decentralised media market, there are other forums open to groups like Hobson’s Pledge.
But it does bring into focus how we conduct debate; not by challenging ideas but by seeking to silence those whose ideas we dislike. The open letter mentioned above wrote that the Herald should “… have known or investigated, whether the information or deceptive before the advertisement was published.”
This isn’t the case. The Herald is not responsible for the contents of the ads it carries, any more than they should verify the returns offered by the dodgy financial institutions or the veracity of claims made in the personals.
It assumes a degree of gullibility on behalf of the consumer that requires protection from the ideas of Dr Brash and others like him and we must rely on the wisdom of self-selected members of the legal community for our own good.
This is also a useful reminder that one of the roles of the fourth estate in civil society is to allow groups like Hobsons Pledge and the Council of Trade Unions a platform to promote issues important to them, but not considered newsworthy, into the national conversation.
Ironically, Matthew Tukai from Waatea News invited Dr Brash into the studio for an interview and had a civil discussion as to the merits of the issue. Both gentlemen appeared to gain something valuable from the exchange.
This, surely, is a more constructive approach to challenging ideas that you disagree with......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
I was vaguely aware of it because I’m kind of interested in these sorts of things but as I type this I’m not over the details; and that is the point.
Dr Don Brash and his team feel this is an important subject and are willing to spend their money to bring it to your attention. Fair enough. Which is why the reaction to the ad was disappointing.
A group of legally focused organisations, including the Māori Law Society and the Auckland Women Law Association, circulated a petition that attracted several hundred legal signatures. They challenged the claims made by Hobson’s Pledge and outlined where they think the ad was mistaken.
There is some hubris in this approach because it implies their arguments carry more weight because they are lawyers. The appeal to authority fallacy can be forgiven when committed by a profession that relies on precedents, but good on them for getting into the debate.
Where they, and others such as Waatea News who terminated a content-sharing arrangement with the Herald, have erred is in placing pressure on the paper when it comes to who should be permitted to carry advertising. This strategy was successful as Hobson’s Pledge had a follow-up ad cancelled and other advocacy groups such as the TaxPayers Union (of which I am a member) have found the paper is less accommodating.
This isn’t, in my view, a free speech issue. NZME, the owner of the Herald, is a private company. No one has a right to advertise their wares, ideas or policies in a private newspaper. In a decentralised media market, there are other forums open to groups like Hobson’s Pledge.
But it does bring into focus how we conduct debate; not by challenging ideas but by seeking to silence those whose ideas we dislike. The open letter mentioned above wrote that the Herald should “… have known or investigated, whether the information or deceptive before the advertisement was published.”
This isn’t the case. The Herald is not responsible for the contents of the ads it carries, any more than they should verify the returns offered by the dodgy financial institutions or the veracity of claims made in the personals.
It assumes a degree of gullibility on behalf of the consumer that requires protection from the ideas of Dr Brash and others like him and we must rely on the wisdom of self-selected members of the legal community for our own good.
This is also a useful reminder that one of the roles of the fourth estate in civil society is to allow groups like Hobsons Pledge and the Council of Trade Unions a platform to promote issues important to them, but not considered newsworthy, into the national conversation.
Ironically, Matthew Tukai from Waatea News invited Dr Brash into the studio for an interview and had a civil discussion as to the merits of the issue. Both gentlemen appeared to gain something valuable from the exchange.
This, surely, is a more constructive approach to challenging ideas that you disagree with......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
2 comments:
Media in NZ since the PJIF really took hold and the narrative that anything to do with moaridom is good and kind became their bread and butter has seen any and all critique or debate about any item that places maoridom in a 'bad light' is now censored, ommitted or treated with a disdain of the racist......
NZME dropped the ball here and allowed the tail to wag the dog. They have been seen for what they are and they will not escape the outcome of being adjudicators of what is right/wrong, seen/not seen and/or debated.
Given that NZME put the ad to their own legal team and then accepted the contract Hobson's Pledge have a very clear case of breach of said contract.
This issue will not go away and NZME may linger to regret being seen as so very partisan on an already slippery slope of distrust.
It is always amusing to read what Damien Grant writes, and his point of view is spot on.
Post a Comment