The parliamentary press gallery hunts as a pack and generally many of its members serve up the same story with the same angle, whether they be working for print, radio or television. This is because they walk in and out of each other’s offices, comparing notes and ensuring they don’t deviate from the line everyone is taking.
Rarely has that been more obvious than with the gallery’s stories about the appointments of Waitakere MP Paula Bennett as Minister of Social Development and Steven Joyce as Minister of Transport and Communications. They are “bolters,” the gallery have decided in unision.
The moment I heard that god-awful expression being used to describe Paula Bennett on Checkpoint last night, I knew we were in for a rash of it and, sure enough, that is how TV3’s report last night described her, too. So does the New Zealand Herald this morning which also describes her as having a “bubbly personality,” while the DomPost calls her a “bubbly solo mum.”
So quickly does a press gallery assault on the English language spread through the media that, on Morning Report today, the usually cliche-free Geoff Robinson trotted out “the bolter” to describe Steven Joyce.
A quick Google reveals dozens of articles published since yesterday describing Joyce and Bennett as bolters. I can’t recall a term that has got right up my nose in such a short time as this one.
Sigh.
33 Comments
November 18, 2008 at 9:09 am
Oh dear. Showing my age (or the average gallery journalist’s age, or something.)
A lady advertised as a solo mum who was also described as a ‘bolter’ brought an entirely different impression to my mind…
November 18, 2008 at 9:38 am
Similarly they are all convinced that Williamson is a loser. History may take a different view.
Rodney Hide is now “Minister for Ending the Depression” (MED) and the Maurice Williamson is his “Associate Minister” (AMED) – because the LGA, the RMA, and the Building Act are the key to enabling NZ to build its way out of the depression.
In many ways the LGA is now more of a threat to economic growth than the RMA. Both need to be reformed at the same time – and Rodney deals with both under his new brief. He is Minister of Local Government and all Regional and District Plans are sets of Regulations – and Rodney is Minister in charge of Regulatory Reform.
Also as Leighton Smith’s callers demonstrated yesterday, the Building Act is as big an obstacle as the RMA.
Maurice Williamson is Minister of Building.
So the two of them hold the future of the private sector of the economy in their hands.
Having them both outside cabinet is good politics because the new policies they will have to come up with cannot be attacked as being John Key’s secret agenda.
Rodney and Maurice are of similar minds and with Rodney dealing with the big issues in the RMA (given that Nick has promised EDS in public that he will do no more than tinker) and Maurice dealing with the building fiasco we might have a change of getting the country moving again.
November 18, 2008 at 9:41 am
All it’d take would be a minor change of mood – like, this newfound kinder ‘n gentler face of National having to grin & wear it for some loose-cannon initiative of Rodny the Rational – and the fickle press gallery will be piling the faggots around the stake.
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
November 18, 2008 at 10:06 am
Ah, but at the end of the day if they see a window of opportunity they’ll be on a level playing field going forward.
November 18, 2008 at 11:16 am
Leopold: you’re right.
In Nancy Mitford’s ‘The Pursuit of Love’, the narrator has been abandoned by her mother (’The Bolter’) to be brought up by an aunt!
November 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Carol
I thought of Mitford as well, but I suspect that very few in the Press gallery will have heard of Mitford, let alone know of her use of ‘The Bolter’
Apart from that I think the usage is wrong for in the OED, a bolter is one who bolts or runs from his/her political party – a US usage, in Australia a bolter is a fugitive from justice and elsewhere is one who bolts or runs, especially as applied to horses.
November 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I agree with Adamsmith. I’ve not heard of “bolter” being used in this context before.
This is because they walk in and out of each other’s offices, comparing notes and ensuring they don’t deviate from the line everyone is taking.
Really? Many books, articles and surveys have demonstrated that journalists are in numerical terms overwhelmingly of the same political orientation and the same liberal mindset. Maybe they do walk in and out of each other’s offices, but I’ll bet there’s very little deviation from the line anyway. This is because they all start from the same reference point.
Its a sameness that is killing journalism but do I care? After the disgraceful farce of the US election, almost every damn “journalist” can rot in hell as far as I’m concerned. Never before have I witnessed such abject dereliction of duty. I’m no journalist myself of course, and I’m ready to be corrected on this issue by anyone who is, but I have always understood that the primary role of the journalist is to scrutinise those in power or those who seek power.
The big problem I have is why did they carry out their duty so enthusiastically regarding Sarah Palin, and fail completely to scrutinize Barack Obama?
Even worse, journalists not only failed to scrutinize, they cheered wildly for their chosen candidate. I don’t begrudge journalists the right to a political view. However for that important sector of society, one that so many once relied on to uncover the truth to fall so completely under the spell of a politician is abhorrent, especially to those of us who are cognisant of how dictators and totalitarians have risen to power in the past.
The collective mindset you allude to in your article is a big part of the reason for this dereliction of duty. You won’t call it what it really is of course. I will. Its political bigotry. An approach guaranteed to turn off at least half their readers, and what I believe is the true reason journalists are being laid off all over the globe.
NZ journalists are going to be transparently “nice” to the Nats for a while, (with pathetic clichés like “bubbly personality”) to try and show us they’re not the partisan hacks we know them to be, but they’ll soon be back to normal. I’ll give it three months max.
November 18, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Having seen Ms Bennett on TVone’s Breakfast weekly for the last year or more, I think “bubbly” is a fairly accurate and obvious description, and it could easily have come to several writers independently… But, yes, the multi-use of “bolter” definitely shows a sharing of ideas…..
November 18, 2008 at 12:45 pm
FletcherB
Not only a sharing of ideas, but an apparent failure by any of them to consider the meaning of the term
November 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The parliamentary press gallery hunts as a pack and generally most of its members serve up the same story with the same angle, whether they be working for print, radio or television. This is because they walk in and out of each other’s offices, comparing notes and ensuring they don’t deviate from the line everyone is taking.
I don’t think they’re quite that coordinated; I suspect someone who’s a horse-racing fan threw the term into their story, other reporters heard it on RNZ or read it on the wire, decided it was good short-hand and co-opted it.
November 18, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Danyl, I’ve worked there three times. Trust me, they do discuss stories the way I describe, especially the large and/or controversial ones. Though as you say, one of them would have come up with the “bolter,” uttered it around the others, and it would then have found its way into the outpourings of much of the gallery. Very likely the uttering would have been done during or immediately after John Key’s press conference at 3pm, when all the gallery would have been present, and they would have been tossing their angles around while walking in pack formation from the press conference back to the gallery offices.
November 18, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Can someone give me a quick definition of what “bolter” means in this context.
The only relevant meaning I know of is someone who quickly leaves a stressful situation in a cowardly manner!
November 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Oh Danyl, what a prosaic explanation. I love the idea of the Mitford usage (=feckless abandoner of small children) being applied to our new Minister of Social Development.
November 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Can someone give me a quick definition of what “bolter” means in this context.
As Danyl alludes, I suspect what was meant by whichever gallery hack dreamt it up was to evoke an upstart racehorse that bolts to victory.
The gallery clearly doesn’t know of its distinct American political meaning (a party member who doesn’t support the party’s candidate) or the Mitford girls (of whom I’ve been a fan and consumed all my life). Being a journalist, Jessica is my favourite. Unity was too sad for words. Nancy was a clever writer.
November 18, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yes, Jessica is my favourite too, though more for her political leanings than her profession
November 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I have never failed to be amazed that the Mitford family produced such extraordinary political opposites as Jessica and Diana.
November 18, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Isn’t a bolter also a plant that quickly runs to seed?
heh heh.
November 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“Bolter” is the long established and much used word to describe the “out of the blue” selection of a new All Black.
Every single annual AB team selection creates sometimes quite feverish speculation of who the “bolter”, or “the bolter from the blue” will be.
The word or the term is as iconic as you could get in NZ and Oz sport, and hardly a cliche when it has to be explained.
JC
November 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
The first time I remember hearing the term ‘bolter’ used in NZ sport was when Michael Jones was selected for the 1987 World Cup side.
In the Mitford sense…also used by novelist Elizabeth Jane Howard – about herself, and her history of doing a runner from marriages.
In the Bennett context… I’m sure I heard of hear being talked of as a likely bolter in advance of yesterday’s announcement. Can’t recall by who. RNZ, perhaps.
And Poneke, not all of us in the gallery put heads together in the way you describe…its very easy, but wrong, to take the three or four more prominent offices in the gallery as representative of the 50-odd organisations with members there.
November 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I do enjoy your blog, but it does get a bit sneery and conspiracy based when it comes to the gallery.
Maybe it was different in the good old days, but suggesting everyone has get togethers to ensure “no one deviates from the line” paints a picture far from reality.
Sure there is argument and comparison, but there is also competition.
There are also dynamics with agency copy, electronic copy all being read by other journalists (and in some cases being cut and pasted)
I might have a partial observation into how the word “bolter” which offended you and some of your readers so much might have worked its way into so many stories.
I was writing the snap for NZPA — so no time for chats or checking what the gallery position was before writing it.
I was in a hurry — our performance is measured in seconds now, not hours — and the phrase bolter came into my head.
I thought of it in the racing sense of a horse coming through the field out of nowhere to win.
After I wrote it I did have some second thoughts about the word, but noticed it was used elsewhere.
Maybe others liked it, maybe it was copy osmosis, or maybe others thought of the same image themselves… but they all seemed to think it meant the same thing.
Maybe not my greatest piece of work, but not my worst
But “decision in unison”… are you really suggesting that personalities as strong and diverse as Young, Espiner (x2), Edwards, Small, Armstrong, Garner and so on, really have to get together to form a common opinion on something without making up their own minds.
I dare you tell that to Audrey’s face… I could sell tickets
November 18, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Yes. The new minister continually being called a ’solo mum’ got up my nose too.
The appendage of ‘gate’ on every scandal…real or imagined ,often makes me wonder if the angles aren’t sorted before the copy is typed or reporters are utterly bereft of any new terms.
November 18, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I immediately thought of the Mitfords when I heard the term “Bolter”. It didn’t seem to fit at all in this context. Nancy was always my favourite by the way.
November 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm
not all of us in the gallery put heads together in the way you describe…its very easy, but wrong, to take the three or four more prominent offices in the gallery as representative of the 50-odd organisations with members there.
I do use a certain amount of hyperbole on this blog, Rob!
I dare you tell that to Audrey’s face… I could sell tickets
I’d pay to see it myself, Ian! Much as I wouldn’t really care to mess with Audrey….
November 18, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Hmmm .. I’ve just rechecked my copy and can’t see the word “bolter” anywhere.
I must have missed that Press Gallery consensus meeting you were referring to. I’ll make sure I get to it next time.
November 18, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I dare you tell that to Audrey’s face… I could sell tickets
Members of the Press Gallery are reluctant to accept constructive feedback on their performance from professional colleagues when they’re being silly? You astonish me
November 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The term, bolters (euphemistically claimed as those who use a device for bolting), may eventuate to be an apt term for these two freshmen if they tightly screw down some of those washer-less nuts in the House.
November 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm
No ET you miss the point.
It’s not about criticism about being silly, making mistakes or being wrong.
These things happen in any workplace and gallery journalists get plenty of that sort of feedback from politicians, colleagues, their bosses and the public.
I was just pointing out that it easy to make false accusations on a blog, but face to face is much harder.
In this case the idea that gallery journalists get together and form an opinion and then report it as some sort of cabal is just ridiculous.
My point was that if Poneke wants to make that argument face to face with Audrey or anyone else in the gallery, I would love to watch…
But saying that, I can accept there are failings with the gallery system of reporting politics.
I just can’t think of a better alternative.
Though of course I am biased as I am blessed being a sad individual who loves politics, writing and thinking about both and gets paid for it
November 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm
[...] Poneke wrote a post on Cliche usage today in regard to the Press Gallery and the use of the term bolter and bubbly. [...]
November 19, 2008 at 6:42 am
Oh Danyl, what a prosaic explanation. I love the idea of the Mitford usage (=feckless abandoner of small children) being applied to our new Minister of Social Development.
Carol: I know you were having a joke, but think about that for a bit. Wonder if you’d find it quite so funny if the term was applied to Carmel Sepuloni, who is a newbie on the Labour list, who is being talked about as someone set for a rapid rise up the ranks, despite being a solo mum from the “wrong side of the tracks” (something which varies depending on which side of aforementioned tracks you’re standing, I suppose).
You can snigger all you like, Carol, but National just can’t win can they? Get bitched if the caucus is wall to wall upper-middle class white male lawyers and farmers (who naturally have wifey at home looking after the kids). Then when people like Paula, Nikki Kaye, Pansy Wong and Simon Bridges succeed they’re vacuous bimbos, if not outright class/race traitors.
November 19, 2008 at 9:08 am
Craig, it was a joke, and it was intended to be aimed at the press gallery, not at Paula Bennett. I think she’s rather splendid – so far. I’m all for more non-white upper middle class male lawyers and farmers in Parliament, no matter what party.
November 19, 2008 at 9:51 am
“But “decision in unison”… are you really suggesting that personalities as strong and diverse as Young, Espiner (x2), Edwards, Small, Armstrong, Garner and so on, really have to get together to form a common opinion on something without making up their own minds.”
Maybe they don’t put their heads together, but that’s hardly necessary when their heads are all the same anyway. Yeah, they may have different “personalities”, but they’re depressingly similar in their political perspectives. Surveys, university studies, and books by reputable authors all point to an extreme lack of political diversity in the mainstream media.
However, I repeat my original claim- nothing has made this more apparent than the media’s fawning over Barack Obama and their complete and utter failure to do their job in scrutinizing the man as a Presidential Candidate.
A Republican as inexperienced as Obama would have been crucified. Bush was hounded from day one with demands to release documentation relating to events in his past. Nothing even remotely similar has been requested of Obama. In fact the very issue of his American citizenship remains an issue, and yet the media stubbornly refuse to follow up on the matter.
Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell said recently-”I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo.”
A favourite strategy of the sniffing academics who differ with this point of view I express here is to try and write off their opponents as “wingnuts” with ideas that are beneath the threshold of serious comment. I refer anyone impressed by this tactic to visit the following web page, referenced on Drudge this morning. The systemic failure of the media to do their job in the US election is now the subject of a movie. What, to all of you liberals, could possibly give the idea more credibility? (example- An Inconvenient Truth)
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
November 28, 2008 at 11:00 am
The original bolter was Idina Sackville; she was the inspiration for Nancy Mitford’s Bolter. She was divorced twice before age 30 and buggered off to Kenya where was involved in the louche carryings-on chronicled in James Fox’ White Mischief.
November 28, 2008 at 11:54 am
She didn’t get the name because of her table manners, then?