the blog and turfs and the brandywine bankrompers

I was seriously considering throwing in this blogging thing earlier today - as an experiment, it's essentially failed (if you take aside its initial incarnation as a diversion while at work and the brief flurry while I was at school).

That was until I read an old compadre of mine this afternoon that incensed me for no apparent reason. It's an innocuous entry that makes a small contribution to the ongoing battle between Lew and Chris Trotter over the future of the country's political left.

Yet it was this simple statement that got my goat (my emphasis added):

Lew at Kiwipolitico has the kind of post up at the moment that reminds me why mainstream media is such an unsatisfying read/consume when it comes to political commentary.

There's a common refrain in the blogosphere that the mainstream media has failed, yet I remain unconvinced - yes it has its short-comings, but it can't be everything to everyone.

And that seems to be the over-riding concern for a number of my friends - it doesn't coin things in a paradigm that they've bought into.

For every lament as to why our top political commentators aren't delving into the growing divisions of the Labour Party movement, we get insightful pieces from the likes of Colin James, Pattrick Smellie (I'm contractually obligated for this one), and Fran O'Sullivan as to how political language is being re-written, why Don Brash is a naive idealogue rather than the spawn of Satan, and what the government is doing wrong in addressing youth wages.

They are doing what they do, and the majority of them do it very well, even if it doesn't touch on a number of keystone issues that the blogosphere wants to enter the main lexicon.

To be honest, the internal politicking of the wider left-wing movement in New Zealand isn't actually that important when it doesn't have any power, or prospect of taking power in the next five years (just saying).

What I'd be much more keen on seeing would be the internal divisions of the labour movement, which will have a lot of power in the coming years.

So I guess this is really just a gripe, and I've fallen into that trap that so many bloggers (and New Zealanders) do of identifying a problem without providing an answer. So let's pull a Kevin Smith a la Zack and Miri and tack something into the credits: ummmm, bloggers can do thier ultra-specialised commentary that will be taken with a vat of salt and MSM columnists (why am I even getting worked up over columnists - excepting Garth George, Michael Laws, Jim Hopkins, Richard Long, etc etc etc) can stick to their turf of churning something out in 40 minutes as deadline looms.....

Oy vey...

PB.

Some day you'll know. They're calling to you too.

It is with a heavy heart that I read Colin James' last column in the Herald today.

For the last ten years, Mr James has given Granny readers a taste of analysis over the usual empty rhetoric that passes for columns these days, and to my mind, it seems an absolute waste that the Herald's decided to give him the flick.

What's most concerning for this baby journalist, though, is if luminaries like Mr James have grown either too stale for the Granny's taste or too expensive, what's going to be left?

Are newswrooms shrinking to such a state that columnists will now be on staff?

Is long-term analysis that tends to shy away from any strong partisan position no longer in vogue? (I know I know... it never really was...)

Are quality hacks being cut down one by one, in order for them to be replaced by drones waiting for their $60k comms job?

I couldn't even turn to the blogosphere for answers, as his demise doesn't seem to have attracted much attention (he got a tribute from the Tailor on Panama St, and nods from DPF, IrishBill and Adam Smith).

I hope I'm being paranoid...

But I've got a sneaking sensation I'm not...

PB.

(PS - check out the Tailor's blog - methinks it'll be a goodie... and not of the Bill Odie kind)

Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is ignorant.

Thank you Colin James - thank you very much.

It seems that unlike the majority of pundits, Mr James picked up on the fact that National's campaign pledge for a referendum on MMP is actually major news.

When the Nats put out their ten election pledges (August 3 - a Sunday), RNZ jumped on to the MMP aspect, as did Stuff and the Herald. Some superficial coverage followed, but no-one actually asked any questions about why they were pursuing the referendum, and why Jonkey was the under the assumption that "the country may well vote MMP out but I think they will vote in another proportional system," (my emphasis). Supplementary Member was later touted as a possible replacement, and while DPF gave us a fairly good comparison with MMP, Idiot/Savant shot it down pretty quickly.

My point is - the only people who seem to be railing against MMP are the same reactionaries who railed against it when it was voted in, and have railed against it ever since. People like Garth George.

Everyone I know (and I am aware I'm a weekend socialist) seems to be rather fond of MMP. In fact, some go as far to say that they actually like the fact that gummints can't ram through legislation willy-nilly as they could in yesteryear.

I'm no constitutional expert, I leave that to Palmer and Son, but there's something inherently wrong with either major party lobbying for a less representational system (and we all know both would love to see a return to the glory days).

Like most of my peers (unfortunately I fall into Gen Y), I can't really remember the glorious years of unbridled power, and that (ironically) makes me slightly more cynical than James, who seems to think the public has been well-served by the Fourth Estate and can make an informed decision on most matters:

So Key's self-serving referendum may actually be superfluous. The electorate is wiser than he credits it. It owns the party system and is working out how many parties it wants in Parliament.

I don't think so.

One of my guilty pleasures is listening to talkback radio, and while I think it has enormous potential in offering the wider populace a platform for their opinions and the ability to debate the issues (much like blogging), it usually falls well short, degenerating into the cynical sensationalist broadcasting that attracts the lowest common denominator, and often becomes a strong indicator of public sentiment - it's why the powers that be keep an eye on the watchmen.

If this is the case and Mr Key's assumption is correct, as George Bernard Shaw wrote, we shall be governed no better than we deserve.