And the "Public Interest Journalism Fund" of $55 million of taxpayers' money? Somehow you conveniently overlooked that. I donated to groups like the Taxpayers' Union and Hobson's pledge so our voices could be heard.
The Mainstream Media campaigned for Labour govt right through the election campaign, and the Coalition won the election by grassroots action on alternative media, despite the best efforts by MSM. Bryces article looks like more sour grapes over losing the election to more popular parties. The winning political parties got more money cos they were more popular.
Thank you Bryce, well researched and argued as far as it goes but aren't you missing/ignoring some major influences; influences above and beyond elections that many of the efforts you mention pale in comparison to? Are people even aware of some of the pervasive campaigns they are subjected to?
Take this Covering Climate Now outfit; an international clearing house for climate propaganda and fear mongering. Our legacy media are signed up "partners", committed to promoting one side, and one side only of the "discussion" - no dissent, no questions, allowed. I've no idea who or what funds that but there's no doubt they've subverted the journalistic integrity of our media which is really the issue.
That's fine, and a lot of the political narrative of the day is financed by billionaire sponsors such as George Soros and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Money talks...
Why would a mining company give anything to Labour? Why would a Union give anything to National?
I think you are ignoring the levels of distrust, dislike and desperation to ensure Labour were not reelected which increased the levels of spending and the numbers of organisations that were willing to donate.
If the Family First spending came from the church itself, that could compromise the church's tax-exempt status, if it is the case that NZ religious charities are not supposed to lobby in this way.
I don't know if churches contribute directly to Family First but it was de-registered as a charitable trust in 2022 because of what was viewed as political lobbying. It did seem a bit harsh; Forest and Bird or Greenpeace, for instance, don't hesitate to take what could reasonably be described as political positions but apparently that's OK. It seemed a bit unfair. Perhaps it was their Conservative Christian beliefs that had them singled out?
Meanwhile, legacy media coverage in NZ of the Atlas Network remains patchy at best. America is becoming a cautionary tale of the one-dollar-one-vote mentality.
And the "Public Interest Journalism Fund" of $55 million of taxpayers' money? Somehow you conveniently overlooked that. I donated to groups like the Taxpayers' Union and Hobson's pledge so our voices could be heard.
The Mainstream Media campaigned for Labour govt right through the election campaign, and the Coalition won the election by grassroots action on alternative media, despite the best efforts by MSM. Bryces article looks like more sour grapes over losing the election to more popular parties. The winning political parties got more money cos they were more popular.
Thank you Bryce, well researched and argued as far as it goes but aren't you missing/ignoring some major influences; influences above and beyond elections that many of the efforts you mention pale in comparison to? Are people even aware of some of the pervasive campaigns they are subjected to?
Take this Covering Climate Now outfit; an international clearing house for climate propaganda and fear mongering. Our legacy media are signed up "partners", committed to promoting one side, and one side only of the "discussion" - no dissent, no questions, allowed. I've no idea who or what funds that but there's no doubt they've subverted the journalistic integrity of our media which is really the issue.
https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/
That's fine, and a lot of the political narrative of the day is financed by billionaire sponsors such as George Soros and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Money talks...
Why would a mining company give anything to Labour? Why would a Union give anything to National?
I think you are ignoring the levels of distrust, dislike and desperation to ensure Labour were not reelected which increased the levels of spending and the numbers of organisations that were willing to donate.
If the Family First spending came from the church itself, that could compromise the church's tax-exempt status, if it is the case that NZ religious charities are not supposed to lobby in this way.
I don't know if churches contribute directly to Family First but it was de-registered as a charitable trust in 2022 because of what was viewed as political lobbying. It did seem a bit harsh; Forest and Bird or Greenpeace, for instance, don't hesitate to take what could reasonably be described as political positions but apparently that's OK. It seemed a bit unfair. Perhaps it was their Conservative Christian beliefs that had them singled out?
Not as such. See Attorney-General v Family First NZ [2022] NZSC 80
Thanks for that ANZSA, central to the case was this belief:
"Supporting the family and marriage is not a purpose beneficial to the community".
Seems an odd position to take when all evidence suggests the opposite.
Meanwhile, legacy media coverage in NZ of the Atlas Network remains patchy at best. America is becoming a cautionary tale of the one-dollar-one-vote mentality.