Right next to the entrance to Bowen House and unmissable to Helen Clark and every other member of Parliament walking in there, the window display of Bennett’s Government Bookshop is a great stack of copies of Absolute Power, Ian Wishart’s latest, er, hatchet job on the prime minister.
The blogosphere is full of people who claim the Clark Government has either destroyed freedom of speech in this country or is trying to do so. They are entitled to their opinion. Some of them just might even believe it.
But the fact that the bookshop used by MPs and passed countless times a day by cabinet ministers and members of Parliament has made a window display out of a tawdry text full of innuendo and smut about the prime minister and many other hard-working, honest New Zealanders gives the ultimate lie to those rather strange opinions.
Ian Wishart, who has a breathless, racy style and an eye to a scandal, writes books that sell very well, even if they are full of conspiracy theories, half-baked suppositions and, at times, bilge. In its first 48 hours, he says, Absolute Power has sold 7000 copies, with some bookstores onto their third supply of it, beating the 5000 copies sold in two days in 1995 of his seminal The Paradise Conspiracy, which has sold 35,000 copies to date.
Ian hails Absolute Power as “the Most Explosive Political Biography Ever Released in New Zealand” (the capitals are his) and claims: “We used to joke ‘buy it before they ban it’. But now the Electoral Finance Act has been passed. All we can say is, if you don’t pre-order a copy for Day One, you might not get a chance on Day Two.”
Well, the only people I’ve so far seen try to have anything banned under the Electoral Finance Act are people who Ian supports, who’ve lodged complaints about the Engineer’s Union registering under it, and about the staging of the play The Hollow Men, which makes fun of the National Party. But that’s politics. Or “party games,” to recall the name of a particularly good episode of Yes Minister.
Politicians and their policies need constant, robust scrutiny, though I do have qualms about the way prominent media commentators like Ian Wishart repeatedly, destructively and falsely paint someone like Helen Clark as being corrupt and acting from the basest of motives. Attacking the prime minister and her husband in the manner Ian does, which includes disgraceful personal attacks of the vilest order, is not robust scrutiny, it is demonising of the kind Julius Streicher made infamous. It’s why I was also recently critical of Finlay Macdonald for likening John Key to Hitler, which is what he did, however his cheerleaders might argue otherwise. Clark and Key, and most of our politicians, are decent people who seek to do their very best for New Zealand. If we keep tearing them down in the outrageous way some critics do, the day will come when we will get political leaders as cynical as those critics.
Meanwhile, I love living in a country where an Ian Wishart can publish a grubby book like Absolute Power, and where the bookshop right next to Parliament’s side door can and does make a window display out of it. It’s called a democracy, and a lively, vibrant, free one at that.
And that is something that makes the Listener’s legal letter to the Hot Topic blog, forcing it to remove a post the editor didn’t like, all the more odder and unfortunate.
44 Comments
April 23, 2008 at 7:21 am
I speed-read through Ian’s book in Borders yesterday – my first impression is that it reveals a lot more about Wishart than it does about Clark. The Acton quote, his conviction that his book is a ’spiritual successor’ to Unbridled Power, the (certainly fabricated) opening story about Clark drowning kittens and his lengthy, confused and elaborate explanations of why he is so obsessed with the sexuality of Clark and her husband . . . All of this sheds little light on Clark but throws the author into fairly stark relief.
April 23, 2008 at 8:19 am
I heard Wishart on his radio program after the Prostitution Law was passed he exuded : “I hate lillyyyyyy liveredddddd liberalsssszz!!!!!!!!!”
April 23, 2008 at 8:55 am
So, Poneke, you’ve actually read the book? Wonders never cease.
April 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Attacking the prime minister and her husband in the manner Ian does, which includes disgraceful personal attacks of the vilest order
Poneke there is a phrase ‘what goes around, comes around’. Clark has launched vile attacks on her enemies and opposition on innumerable occasions, and, when she has not been in a position to do so herself, has released various members of her cabinet or party off the leash and allowed them to do her dirty work.
[Poneke says: You seem not to know the meaning of the word "vile." It means: "Morally low; base; despicable." Absolute Power contains entire chapters of utter vileness. Ian has exceeded even his own past efforts.]
April 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Great post, Poneke. Couldn’t agree more. Helen Clark isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but she isn’t evil or vile. She’s sincere and hard working and cares deeply about the ideals and values she has organised her life to serve and advance. The same applies to many politicians of any ideological stripe.
April 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I am reliant on other people reviewing this trash because there is no way I am wasting good money on bad stuff. Several years ago, I subscribed to ‘Investigate’ magazine (for a year) and bought 3 of Wishart’s books. I did not re-subscribe to ‘Investigate’ magazine – it had become painfully obvious the editor was an anti-science christian fundamentalist, with a USA Right Wing-driven agenda- and I found the books…less than convincing, and badly written BUT
two of my cousins fell upon the rejected pile of trash with joy! This was what they’d been wanting to read *forever* said one.
They are devotees of talkback radio; they have severe doubts about the ‘Maori grievance industry’ (despite having Kai Tahu rellies);they *know* corporal punishment is the best way for families/schools/the prison system to handle disobedience, ‘deviancies’ & social difference; they believe vaccination is responsible for autism, cancer, mental illnesses, and is solely promoted by ‘Big Pharma’ (which is also responsible for most of the rest of current illnesses), annnd they are really fervent conspiracy theorists. Doesnt matter whether it’s politics, archaeology, evolution, anything – there is an officially-sanctioned – nay, driven!- cover-up going on.
Those cousins belong to Talkbackland, and they form a significant percentage (maybe as high of 15%?)of our population. They are Wishart’s readership and fan-base, and they are immune to rational discussion or better information about their beliefs…so they buy his crap.
[Poneke says: Yes, and in huge numbers! People of course are entitled to believe any old rubbish they like, as I always say. But I do despair that people who know better peddle it because it suits their agendas, even though they know it's garbage. I'll probably post my review over the weekend, after I read parts of it a second time just to make sure he really said what I thought he was saying the first time around.]
April 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
What pathetic whingeing.
Poneke, you evidently can’t read. It is not “vile” to examine whether an elected public official has lied.
Nor is it “vile” just because the Left decrees it so. Get over yourself. Helen Clark is the person who put all this into the public domain, and I could hardly do a biography of her leadership without addressing what she had previously spun.
She has used a mythology around her as a tool to obtain votes. Fine, but we are equally entitled to dissect the mythology.
Clark is dishonest. Is that so hard to get your heads around? Apparently so.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but “Memo to Poneke”: at dawn tomorrow note the direction the sunlight comes from. It is not emanating from the Prime Minister.
And Keri…coming from the author of The Bone People, your literary criticism is amusing.
April 23, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Ian, if stranded on a desert Island with a choice of just one book, I’d choose the Bone People over anything you wrote without even pausing for thought.
Indeed, if I were to be stranded on a desert island with just one book, and it had to be yours, I’d take my chances with the saltwater and the sharks…
by the way, Poneke, if you do have a review planned, I’d love to read it…
[Poneke says: I am reviewing it, I'll post it over the weekend at some stage.]
April 23, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Not a great fan of Ians but his book is great and very deatailed…..his points are well made and are backed by Clarks own recorded words and deeds…..shes bang to rights in my opinion.
April 23, 2008 at 5:54 pm
It sounds like Ian has determined that not only is Helen a politician, but that she acts like a politician.
Well done Ian.
Have you ever considered a career in politics yourself Ian?
April 23, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Andrew W’s position….”Thats how it is,can’t be any different….accept it,move on”
And we wonder why this countrys slipping into the shitter……
April 23, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but “Memo to Poneke”: at dawn tomorrow note the direction the sunlight comes from. It is not emanating from the Prime Minister.
Interesting comment this one. Given Poneke’s never (as far as I can remember) talked about Clark in terms as glowing as Ian suggests, for someone claiming to be a font of truth Mr Wishart seems to fly off into tangents of imagination quite quickly (Poneke criticises me therefore I’ve all the proof I need to know he’s Clark’s greatest fan).
April 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Ian Wishart hassling the writer who won the Booker Prize is… like being Rick Stein being insulted about his cooking by a fry cook at the local fish ‘n chip shop. Hardly damning.
I might add I think Keri Hulme’s book of short stories, “Stonefish” is a wonderful work. My favorite story is “Getting It” btw. I read it in an anthology of Maori writers and it was so good I bought “Stonefish”. I say you should all go and buy this book rather than anything Wishart has published. Excellent reading on a cold autumn night in front of the fire with a good whiskey.
April 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Morally low; base; despicable
Poneke – that only begins to cover some of the personal attacks that are the hallmark of our PM. I would like to add ‘amoral’ to that as well.
April 23, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Poneke, why dont you mention the conspiracy theories, half-baked suppositions and, at times, bilge. Or havent you read the book yet…
April 24, 2008 at 9:45 am
The guy takes on evolution in the divinity code, arguing against the scientific establishment, and what evidence does he provide? He cites Wikipedia!
Enough said.
I agree with Poneke that it is a sign of a healthy democracy that we allow even Wishart’s hate speech, but I feel any political criticism that focuses not on issues and policy, but the private lives of politicians, detracts public attention from the issues that matter. Such crap journalism ensures the failure of the fourth estate. Wishart is certainly not the only to blame, but he is easily the most culpable.
Before I’m slandered as a left wing ‘PC’ whinger, consider Wishart’s objectivity. A journalist should attempt impartiality, fairness and balance. There are actually ethical codes and legal codes for journalists. Again Wishart isn’t the only bias journalist, but he is the most ridiculously slanted. Wishart is the reason why journalists are as trusted as used-car dealers and lawyers.
He is an ID proponent.
Enough said!
April 24, 2008 at 9:53 am
Underground, old China…again another ridiculous rant, all splash and no depth. A journalist’s job is to report the facts. Facts are not opinions, and unless I am seeking someone’s opinion on said facts I don’t have to go racing back and forth finding alternative viewpoints.
You fundamentally misunderstand journalism. If my facts are wrong, by all means ping me on them. If not…take a hike.
Whining about “vile” or “hate” or “bias” is the last refuge of those who have no ability to counter the facts.
You celebrated the release of Hollow Men. Boot now on other foot. Grow up and get over it.
April 24, 2008 at 10:26 am
Play the matching game:1)Poneke’s post above, 2)Ian’s books. Match against the following:
a) Carefully nuanced and elegant proposition of democratic principles
b) Sprawling diatribes not just bordering on paranoia, but making raids well over the border to stake out new territories in alternative reality.
April 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I agree with Poneke that it is a sign of a healthy democracy that we allow even Wishart’s hate speech
I abhor the term “hate speech” as much as I abhor the use of the term “climate change denier.”
Both are politically motivated terms coined to abuse people holding viewpoints that are opposed by the user.
Whatever he writes, and whatever the definition of the term “hate speech” (which is on the statute books in some countries that are not as strong on freedom of expression as we are), Ian certainly does not write hate speech.
April 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Muerk
Wishart’s efforts are not all that bad. Back in 1997, under his “Howling at the Moon Productions” publishing effort, he released a woeful tale that you and your aunt might enjoy – “A Mother’s Story – The Civic Creche Child Sex Trial” by Joy Bander.
[Poneke says: I think Muerk has much more common sense, wisdom indeed, than to be taken in by that work of witchcraft fantasy!]
April 24, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I have no intention of buying Wishart’s latest silly diatribe, and I’d advise no-one else to do so either. And incidentally, The Hollow Men was a masterpiece of investigative journalism.
“Absolute Stupidity” is yet another set of unoriginal rants from the raving right of the political spectrum. Its author is a conspiracy theorist who seems to regard Helen C as some latter day Big Sister, and no doubt has nightmares about being chased down darkened corridors by giant Maori Muslim lesbian deconstructionist neomarxist DPB claimant devils who believe in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Innocent trees had to die for this travesty of journalism and investigative analysis…
Evil Gay Journo
April 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“pathetic whinging”, “take a hike”, “grow up”… hmmm what eloquent words from the just-published author.
So eloquent it’s put me off reading the book entirely.
April 24, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Wishart:
You are a vile little person, and your obsession with Helen Clark’s supposed sexual orientation and an imaginary homosexual mafia taking this country down the lavender path to perdition would be laughable if it wasn’t do damn sinister.
And if you have a problem with your work being subject to criticism, then you can guess where I’ll suggest you can go, and what to do when you get there.
If nothing else, you remind me of Christopher Hitchens’ criticism of the more… shall we say, hysterical and paranoid criticisms of Bill Clinton from the rabid right. In Hitchens’ opinion, all they achieved was to win Clinton sympathy and indulgence he didn’t deserve from people who ended up tarring more substantive and reasoned critiques from both the left and the right with the same brush.
With enemies like you, Wishart, Helen Clark doesn’t need friends.
April 24, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Sorry Poneke for putting words in your mouth!Hate speech is a stupid term, and a bit strong, but I’ve tired of Wishart’s bizarre rants, particularly his obsession with homosexuality.
Wishart’s books are full of his own opinions. Thats fine, but don’t dress them up as facts. Wishart appears not to understand notions of objectivity, as facts are dependent on opinions. It is Wishart’s opinions that determine what he considers a credible source for his ‘facts’. If you only report one side of the story, what impression of the ‘facts’ does the reader receive. You have an opinion, you seek out any information that supports your opinion and away you go. That is bias, my friend. You would have learnt about that in your first week of your journalism degree.
Wishart does not always concern himself with empirical facts. For example, arguments for religion are often based on personal experience and therefore religion struggles to deal with objective facts, in the same way that science can. Yet Wishart dismisses evolution opting instead for ID, which has no empirical evidence. Just faith. What facts does one have for justifying blind faith?
As much as I would like to take you on about your ‘facts’ I really am too busy to read your new book. But having read Eve’s bite, and flicked through enough pages of Divinity Code, I won’t be missing out on much.
Whining about the nanny state, political correctness and ‘neocoms’ is the last refuge of those who have no facts to present.
April 24, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Analyst:
I just don’t bother with reading stuff by Ian Wishart or for that matter any tell-all flavor of book. I’m more interested in classic literature with the odd bit of contemporary thrown in.
I’m utterly bemused about the fuss over Helen Clark’s sexuality. I can’t see why it would be an issue either way, frankly it’s none of my business, and it’s none of Ian Wishart’s business either.
I’m a very traditional Catholic and I probably agree with some of Ian Wishart’s theological beliefs, but I think that writing about people’s private lives is a horrible thing to do. I dislike any of the publicity over politicians’ families or private lives, what’s important is their public work.
April 25, 2008 at 11:21 am
How on earth can anything factual be classed as “tawdry”.
Clark is a proven liar and arguably the most corrupt politician this country has ever seen.
The worrying thing to come out of this book is the level of apathy shown by our biased media and the public, despite all that she does we seem to shrug our shoulders and in typical Kiwi apathetic fashion do nothing about it.
They do say that you get the politicians you deserve, if that is true then we are deeper in the poo that I had thought.
April 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm
arguably the most corrupt politician this country has ever seen.
umm… name one incident where she or her family have financially or personally benefitted from an inappropriate use of her position. According to Rosemary Mcleod, didn’t Muldoon order NZPost to carry out telephone connections to help him get his end away?
The word corruption seems to get throw around very lightly these days, usually to describe any political action someone doesn’t like. Whether it’s Brash and the Hollow Men saga or Clark and Wishart’s nonsense most claims of corruption are just too consistently and uniformly partisan to be taken seriously.
Frank, with the Field trial being conducted at the moment bibbruv’s claim against Clark is laughable.
April 25, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“Whether it’s Brash and the Hollow Men saga or Clark and Wishart’s nonsense most claims of corruption are just too consistently and uniformly partisan to be taken seriously.”
I had thought about this myself. Journalists, in particular investigative journalists, lose all credibility if they keep going on about the same thing (especially some thing irrelevant like kitten killing (?) or sexual orientation of politicians). Their bias is there for all to see, and people just write them off. It’s a bit the boy who cried wolf really. So how could a journalist get round this?
Could anyone imagine a journalist who took on each side equally, without bias. As a journalism student, I tried to imagine myself attempting it in the future. I believe you could make an honest sincere attempt (which should be the very least expected from any journalist), but at some point your bias would come through. It will in any form of journalism, but arguably more so in investigative work. Even if you investigated every political party, your bias would be evident in how big the controversy unearthed was in each case and when you presented the evidence (for example election year vs the year after).
I still think that a journalist that at the least went this far, would have more credibility than Wishart or even Hager, who would struggle to be impartial in any story.
Begs the question, when National are in government again, will Wishart retire?
April 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Wishart: “You celebrated the release of Hollow Men. Boot now on other foot.
In recent weeks, various kiwiblogright ranters have been howling in anticipation of the impact that this book would have, predicting the imminent downfall of the government, no less. Well, I’ve been watching NZ’s largest circulation daily closely — as a good jafa does — and listening carefully to the Radio NZ news, and haven’t heard a thing! Strange that.
It’s a few years now, but I seem to recall that Hollow Men made something of a splash. Why no splash this week? Two possible reasons:
a. Vast left-wing conspiracy on the part of ALL of the “mainstream media”
b. Serious media don’t report “conspiracy theories, half-baked suppositions and, at times, bilge.”
April 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Helen Clark is far from decent. Stop the crap the lie cannot continue.
April 25, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I’m just amazed, and somewhat impressed, that there’s a link to Wishart on Poneke’s blogroll.
Very charitable and I don’t know that I could be that generous were I in Poneke’s position.
Kudos to you.
April 26, 2008 at 4:09 pm
What’s the deal with Hot Topic? Does anyone know? It is really strange having a legal firm write to them in that way.
I don’t think it is fair to claim that Helen Clark or her ministers are entirely honest. We have seen some pretty ripe goings since Labour got into power. I haven’t seen the book yet, so maybe it is as ripe as you say, but Mr Wishart may just be evening up the sides in terms of personal attacks.
Was Don Brash really corrosive and cancerous? Is the West Coast feral? Is Mr Key just a rich prick? Did parent’s really ‘beat’ their children? Are National MPs really ‘hollow men’? Maybe, but maybe these are just unfair personal attacks.
April 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I don’t think it is fair to claim that Helen Clark or her ministers are entirely honest.
Well that’s the understatement of the year.
May 1, 2008 at 2:48 pm
boy, everyone here sounds so angry! I loved Helen Clark once, now I am not so sure. I do believe that there is corruption in the Labour Party, and I do think that they stole the election last time (via the pledge card). Everyone here should stop giving so-called ‘hard right fundamentalists’ such a hard time, that is just what Labour wants. I do feel that the Left shunts their views onto the public, and that there is not much common sense in NZ politics, these days. Don Brash was a complete gentleman, and Labour exploited that. Key will need eyes in the back of his head.
By the way, I would like to buy Ian’s latest book, but because of Labour’s over-taxation, I can’t afford to part with $35.95. Can someone loan me a copy? It would be greatly appreciated.
May 3, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I agree with keri and poneke. Ian is peddling his garbage to push his own agenda and threatens to sue everyone who speaks out against him. His supporters have taken over message boards as well as talkback radio with this utter nonsense and they can’t be reasoned with at all.
Bone People rocks.
May 6, 2008 at 10:51 am
In Chapter 12 of Absolute Power, Wishart quotes a number of passages from Simone de Beauvour’s The Second Sex. These passages generally set out some of the reasons why a woman might want to embark on a lesbian relationship. It’s not entirely clear, but the purpose of the quotes seems to be to describe attitudes that Helen Clark was indelibly influenced by in her youth, or has adopted after reading the book, or both.
But what do we know about the relationship between Helen Clark and The Second Sex?
On page 206 Wishart quotes her sister Jenefer’s statement from Brian Edwards’ book that Clark provided her with a copy of the book. That appears to be it.
It seems that the only 100% certain inference that can be drawn from this is that Clark had possession of a copy of the book. This inference is based simply on the laws of physics, in that to give someone a book you need to have it in your hand in the first place.
Anything else about the relationship between Clark and the book is pure speculation. Has she ever read it? We don’t know. Between not reading a word of it and reading it from cover to cover, there is an almost infinite number of possibilities, only some of which would include actually reading the chapter that Wishart has read and quotes from. But on page 222 Wishart makes the astonishingly unsupported staement that The Second Sex was one of Clark’s favourite books!
The passages that Wishart selectively quotes from The Second Sex completely distort de Beauvoir’s message. On the basis of a 20-page chapter in a philosophical treatise of more than 700 pages, Wishart transforms The Second Sex into a lesbian manifesto. It’s like saying the Bible promotes incest because it includes the story of Lot impregnating his daughters. (The further step, of course, is that if the Bible is your “favourite book”, then you’ve been indelibly influenced by that story).
However, apart from Chapter 4 of Part IV, which has been the subject of much focus and discussion, in The Second Sex the overwhelming preoccupation of the writer is male/female relations, and in the conclusion de Beauvoir makes this clear:
“To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist for him also: mutually recognising each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. The reciprocity of their relations will not do away with the miracles – desire, possession, love, dream, adventure – worked by the division of human beings into two separate categories; and the words that move us – giving, conquering, uniting – will not lose their meaning. On the contrary, when we abolish the slavery of half of humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that it implies, then the ‘division’ of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form.” (Page 740 of the Vintage edition)
Speaking from her vantage point in 1949, de Beauvoir saw possibilities for male/female relationships in the future which clearly challenge the narrow view of marriage which Wishart doesn’t seem to be able to shake off:
“New relations of flesh and sentiment of which we have no conception will arise between the sexes; already, indeed, there have appeared between men and women friendships, rivalries, complicities, comradeships – chaste or sensual – which past centuries could not have conceived.” (Page 740)
Wishart’s essentially gossipy chapters on Helen Clark’s and Peter Davis’ relationship can be reduced to a speculation as to whether the PM and her husband “do it”. Far from being something that everyone ought to know, this speculation is deeply offensive and demonstrates once again that Wishart has no conception of how a responsible journalist should behave.
May 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Helen Clark will, like everybody, reap what she has sown. The only difference is that her karma will be more public.
It must be very difficult to be a leading politician and maintain your honesty, decency and humanity.
May 8, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Totally agree with Jack.
And thanks Poneke for your opinion – was almost tempted to buy the book today but think i’ll give it a miss now.
Whishart (doesn’t it remind you of Lockhart from Harry Potter? No? OK…) does make a valid point: Helen Clark is a mean, kinda lean, fighting machine. It wouldn’t surprise me if her marriage was merely ‘political’ – but who am i to judge? That doesn’t make her a liar…just a seriously sad person. Although I suppose ’seriously sad’ wouldn’t sell as many books.
Anyway, very interesting stuff! Good on you Wish for making yourself heard. Not so good on you if you had to fill in a few gaps to plump the book up. $35 is a bit beyond my door-stop budget. Maybe next time mate.
May 16, 2008 at 12:42 am
Yep I agree, everyone reaps what they sow. Clark and Cullen seem to like their positions of power, but I don’t envy them at all. I believe their government go down in history as one of NZ’s worst and most corrupt, but time will tell. Whenever I see Clark gracing the cover of some magazine, I just sigh with patience and remember the coming election. The mud is sticking these days, and the scandals just keep on coming. National will rocket home this time, it will be a shoe-in. Governments just cannot run roughshod over the people forever and still last. Still can’t buy the book, but have flicked through it. Why is the media so biased to the Left? They are so boring.
The Herald writers in particular seem to be really left-wing and pro-Labour. Ian would never get a fair review from them because of their red-tinged preference, and distaste for the truth. National have to work extra hard for the positive coverage that Labour has enjoyed for so long, but they are fighting their corner very well. This election will be like in the old days, before MMP corrupted our system. The people are fooled no longer, you can almost taste the discontent.
May 16, 2008 at 7:22 am
Hilarious. The Herald is pro-Labour? The same Herald which is publishing that Democracy Under Attack thing about the electoral finance every month between now and the election; which got smacked down by the Press Council for it? The same one that all the Labour supporters complains is too right-wing?
If I were Tim Murphy I’d be thrilled: pissing off both ends of the political spectrum is a badge of honour.
L
September 8, 2008 at 2:56 pm
If what he wrote is so blatantly untrue, why hasn’t she sued for liable? Ian does a passable job of questioning the legality of the government as well… http://www.investigatemagazine.com/Feb00.htm
For those who have decided not to read the book because of this blog? Keep watching the TV, everything is fine, your government loves you and would never lie to you.
September 8, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“. . . sued for liable?”
Until a couple of weeks ago I’d never heard of eggcorns. Now they’re everywhere.
September 8, 2008 at 8:21 pm
My job involves a lot of editing these days, and I’ve just started chanting ‘eggcorn’ under my breath whenever I’m at it.
September 8, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I get the feeling he doesn’t exactly understand the term pastiche either…
Although I guess if you really, REALLY had no sense of irony, you might have thought it a good choice.