Sunday, November 6, 2011

Setting another new (low) Standard

The Standard is at it again; how's this for a headline:

John Key too drunk to drive

Key Derangement Syndrome is alive and well at The Standard. And here's what the author (The Sprout) says when challenged (our emphasis added):

the sprout 2.2.1

i’m not saying it seriously (see humour tag) – it’s just a funny bit of election season bullshit, like lightbulbs and showers, monkeys’ uncles… it’s not like i’m calling the little klepto prick a drunken sailor on national television!

We may be a little over the top at times; but we hope we never have to resort to this kind of innuendo and sheer nastiness.


Sir Loin said...

Have the Standard authors ever had jobs outside the sheltered workshops of the unions , Labour party or government departments ? Their sense of humour is infantile.

Ray said...

Oops: I have been banned for three months for suggesting this is not a really a good idea

Not often a commenter or reader there, except to point out real problems with their ideas/arguments so no real problem
If they don’t want my help, stuff them
I think I will wear it as a badge of honour

Mort said...

if he's a little klepto prick for stealing 33% of someones income, what does that people who want to steal 39%+?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the point of their picture, at all. Are they saying that a person who is prime minister should not drink a beer at a BBQ? Just last week Phil Goff was asked if he would choose a Tui or a pinot, and he replied pinot, so presumably he has the occasional drink, but I'm guessing the Standard thinks it's ok for Phil Goff to have a drink.

adamsmith1922 said...

In the echo chamber that is The Standard they are deafened by the sound of their self applause, but outside they just appear the morns that they are

Sir Loin said...

The measure of a blog's value is if it's author gets quoted or interviewed in the media. If they remain anonymous the Standard authors will never get their views out so therefore are irrelevant.

Unknown said...

Hi I2: I'd have thought you'd have given up doing these remarkably ineffective posts by now. But I guess repetitive behavior is a sign of something...

We had a third increase in page views last month to 412k page views. Obviously other people don't share your beliefs. By way of comparison, I see that you are now about 38k page views (which is pretty damn good for normal blogs).

steak impressionist: All of us work. Amongst the public authors, 3 of us work in private industry, one is a mother and student, one is retired, and one is a unionist. I'd guess that you're just kind of retarded by your bigotry.

Perhaps you should read our about to find out what the site was set up for. It doesn't say that it was set up for narcissistic egotists or that we want to be chased around by media for quotes. We have other better things to do than reading our news clippings. It is a place for people mostly from the broad left to discuss things, and that is what it does.

Ray: Why bother lying? THe reason you got a ban is in public view

The fastest way to earn a ban is to do what you actually did. You tried to tell us we were an organ of the Labour party. For some reason I really can't be bothered with someone who tries that tactic yet again.

Trying to tell us what to do on our own site is the second fastest way to earn a ban known. We've been building the site towards being the main political blog for 4 years now. We know what works and what doesn't.

adam: Even this site is less of an echo chamber than yours.

lprent said...

Umm. The last comment was mine. The google account thing misbehaved.

Sir Loin said...

INV2 - congratulations - a visit from "lprent" is a sign you are doing a good job as a blogger and that your site has "profile".

LPRENT - you have been running the "About Us" line for years. It is no more credible now than the first time I saw it 3 years ago. The list of occupations you gave do not exclude any of you from being associated with the Labour Party. The one who is a unionist is almost certainly associated with it.

If you want to become the main political blog you clearly need to do something different because you fall a long way behind the most popular ones. Page impressions is a poor measure of site success, every time someone refreshes to see if they have been banned you get another page impression.

lprent said...

Meathead: Don't be quite so much of a fool. Of course we have associations with Labour. It is the largest left party. I am a member. One of our authors is Mike Smith, who used to be Labour's general secretary before her retired. We also have authors who'd never vote Labour because they consider it to be contaminated by the right, unionists who are unaffliated with Labour, and authors that swing around the left parties (two currently seem to expend their efforts on Mana).

However we are not run by Labour. We pay for our servers by advertising, previously from my pocket, and in the deep past for 3 weeks by a friends web server.

We are not trying to become "the main political blog". We are intent on becoming a major left political blog (after all the right are rather dull and bereft of good ideas). Becoming the main political blog is something that just happens as our audience grows.

I hardly think that a few people being banned (averages about 4-5 per month) pressing refresh is going to distort stats. In fact the whole idea is distorted - just like your good self.

Page views are the simplest and most effective measurement once you remove the spambots and spiders. Other measurements vary too much between stats engines. Our visitor stats range from 120k/month to 230k per month on different stats engines because it depends on what time is used for the interval of a 'visit'.

Inventory2 said...

@ Lynn; insult people all you want at The Standard, but please leave your attitude parked when you visit elsewhere; I'd hate to have to ban you!

It's interesting though that you are quite comfortable with accusations that John Key is a drunk, and a "little klepto prick".

Sir Loin said...

LPRENT : come on now - as a blog admin of 4 years you know time on site , time on page , monthly uniques , loyalty and visitors are far more important to advertisers.

Quote: "We've been building the site towards being the main political blog for 4 years now." - your words.

In your timeline where does being hosted on the Labour Party servers in 2008 come ? Was that your 3 weeks on a friends server ? Any interested readers can search through Kiwiblog & Gotcha for relevant posts.

lprent said...

I2: I really don't care.

John Key appears to be fully capable of taking care of himself. Are you suggesting he is not?

He is a politician. Politicians are fair game for opinion within the bounds of the legal space. The public good argument that was the basis for that latitude was extensively used by the right over the previous couple of elections. Various commentators of the right accused Labour MP's of anything that they could imagine (facts didn't appear to matter).

Somehow I seemed to have failed to see you complaining then despite the large numbers of your comments I read. Where exactly are your posts declaiming how bad Whaleoil was? Pointing out the filth that Farrar insinuated in his posts?

Don't you ever look at your double standards? Or do you prefer to just accuse others of having them?

Inventory2 said...

Don't you ever look at your double standards? Or do you prefer to just accuse others of having them?

So says he who regularly describes New Zealand's leading political blog as "the sewer" and describes anyone who disagrees with him as a "right-wing nut-job"; pot; meet kettle.

lprent said...

SL: We don't care about advertising except to pay for the servers. If the advertising became too much of a political liability, then we will dump it and move on to other forms of funding.

It wasn't servers being operated by Labour. They were some servers that the use had been donated to Labour, who'd passed them to a friend for general left usage. We hopped off them after we decided that we didn't want to be beholden to Labour even so indirectly. This was all explained at the time. Of course the more notorious hysterics ignored actual facts, preferring their own stories..

I guess you never bothered to actually look for facts either - histrionics do seem to suit you better.

But time to stop bantering about historic lying by whale.

Sir Loin said...

This "discussion" shows why "The Standard" can never claim the moral high ground : anonymity of its authors.

Cameron Slater & Gotcha have lots of faults but when Cameron says something you know who is talking and what his angle (as twisted as it might be ) is. Ditto Farrar .

When "The Standard" puts up a puerile cartoon of John Key you may guess their motivation but you never know who is paying for it. "The Standard" will never speak with authority until it stops sneaking around like a teenage boy behind the girls showers.

lprent said...

I2: I believe that I have explained why I have those opinions many times. Unlike this post for instance where you don't bother to explain why you think the sprout wrote a bad post or comment. You just prefer to dog-whistle to the faithful instead

Perhaps you have failed to read those posts on why I refer to kiwiblog comments sections as the sewer?

And I seldom describe people as RWNJ's. I usually prefer to get somewhat less abstract than that. People I decide that I don't like their opinions or behavior are seldom unclear about why I do not.

I don't bother resorting to shared sniggering, ambiguity and innuendo to make my points. That is something I leave to those who are incapable of understanding themselves.

Sir Loin said...

" We hopped off them after we decided that we didn't want to be beholden to Labour even so indirectly. "

You hopped off them after you were outed by Slater /Farrar and got concerned you / Labour might have been pinged under Helen Clark's draconian Electoral Finance Act.

Inventory2 said...

You accuse me of dog-whistling Lynn; how would you describe The Sprout's post accusing Key of being a drunk then? Do you share his view? And unless "klepto" is an abbreviation for something other than kleptomaniac, do you share the view that Key is a thief?

lprent said...

SL: are you still living in 2008? Seems so from your comments. Once you go past the reprints under "The Standard" and guest posts, we are heading up to about half of the posts being by non psuedononymous authors these days. Not that makes any conceivable difference apart from your wee mind. Ask Inventory2 what difference publishing under his real name makes to him...

I2: I could swear that I answered your last two comments already. It may still be sitting unsent at work. I will repost it when I pull it out of the archives

Suffice it to say that Key is a big boy. If he can't take the joke then he shouldn't be a politician. As for the rest, then perhaps ou have forgotten the phrases so beloved by the scamming hordes in the sewer - that sirloin exemplifies so well. National set the standard to judge politicians and adversaries by. As a rather plain spoken person, I am always willing to describe people as I see them.

If I see hypocrisy, then I will point it out. If I have an opinion on someone or something then I will express it. I will also explain why I think it.

And I am perfectly happy to do that anywhere as long as is required to diffuse it through the body politic.