Politics - Listener, Jane Clifton, 18/03/2006
| Has anyone else noticed falling standards in the Listener? Increasingly week after week, informative articles on important political and social issues appear to have given way to simple-minded articles on property investment, baby boomers and 'ten ways to make yourself happier' type subjects. Now I haven't been scientifically collecting data to prove this assumption, but this week's issue illustrates my point. The main feature is advertised as means of making your life happier (though the article itself is reasonable), there's another feature about how to get the most out of 'your' property investment (as if we all had one), and an uncritical sychophantic profile of National MP Judith Collins written by Jane Clifton. It is she whom I shall focus on in this post. Don't get me wrong, I think Clifton's writing is exceptional and often makes for interesting reading. Unfortunately her regular column doesn't provide perspective on issues that really matter. Her analysis is always along the lines of 'Winston got Nandor in the house, yet Nandor remained cool, and the public will like that'. Her regular column is essentially an uncritical assessment of the political 'game'. More obsessed with appearances and political relationships than those things which either affect lives negatively or positively. Occasionally references to important policy and issues will crop up, but these are usually evaluated with analysis of public opinion / acceptance and who said what. She makes no attempt to reach in to an issue, evaluate evidence, present an argument and make a judgment as to whether it's right or wrong. Such judgements, whether made by Chris Trotter or Deborah Coddington, add important scope and thought to things that really matter. I do think Clifton's writings have a place; but they shouldn't be the regular political column of one of New Zealand's most widely read current affairs magazine. The Listener needs columnists that engage people and encourage debate surrounding important issues (such as this week's editorial). Unfortunately Clifton doesn't seem up to the task. Reducing politics to a game, stifles debate surrounding important issues. It may be true that appearance and power are part of politics just as much as are the issues. But we should be asking ourselves, what's of more importance, tackling the morality and desirability of political policies, or analysing the processes which lead to certain outcomes? The answer is the former. Intelligent debate must form the cornerstone of political discussion and the Listener should recognise that. |
posted by praising_idleness at 15:08
Comments on "Politics - Listener, Jane Clifton, 18/03/2006"
-
Rich said ... (11:58) :
-
Anonymous said ... (12:08) :
-
mike said ... (16:52) :
-
Anonymous said ... (14:26) :
post a commentThe Listener does seem to be moving to the right.
This might be a horribly misogynist remark, and I realise it's unfair to conflate people with their partners - but you have to question how much Jane Clifton's relationship with Murray McCully impacts her ability to write about politics. She must know stuff from Murray (especially regarding the National leadership) that she can't pass on - so when she writes that Don Brash's leadership is/isn't secure you have to question how much is the real story and how much is spin.
I thought Clifton was past it years ago. She is unfortunately a relic of the 90's (or even the 80's). She is from a more naive time where people readily confused cynicism with sophistication.
To me her columns are tedious exercises in how-well-hooked-up-am-I? political cynicism.
Reading Clifton's fawning article about Judith Collins makes me think that she has never seen Collins performing in parliament. During the whole of the Benson-Pope stuff she was stuttering, ill-prepared and gigglingly ineffective, her attacks were about as 'tough' as a toothless worm. Sure she knows how to hit below the belt, but how useful is that in the long term? Bitch is no substitute for substance . For a lawyer with the glittering past Clifton describes Collins is woefully inadequate as a front bencher in parliament
With respect to Rich's comment it is worth noting Clifton's relationship with McCully on this occassion. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that there was an equally soft piece on Judith Collins in the Herald (if I recall correctly) that weekend, with all the soft stuff about keeping the animals on the farm, the tears welling up etc. In that sense, and in my experience, it would seem that the availibility of Collins to the media was managed to counter the unpleasant press she was getting after the pervert remark. Given his position as one of Dr. Brash's closest advisors, for the first time I view the link between McCully and Clifton with suspicion. I also note that there are no responses to the piece in the letters page of today's Listener. I find it hard to imagine that not a single piece of mail was recieved in response to this article, as it was so terribly one sided.