Gordon Campbell - Pathetic

Gordon helps improve relative blog quality

What an appalling interviewer is Gordon Campbell (in this case). He wears his bias on his sleeve, and makes a definite contribution to the low quality journalism that continues to ensure my opinion of the "professional" media don't consider objectivity an important attribute in journalism.

I came across an interview he did with Colin Craig.

Before I go into a couple of examples of his poor interviewing manner, I guess I've firstly got to declare that I currently have no connection with Craig or the Conservative Party, and haven't decided if I'm voting for them as yet.

Here's a couple of comments that came out in the interview worth highlighting:

Campbell: Going back to that point about the social liberalism of John Key: what was the point of principle when it became apparent to you that there had been a parting of the ways between you and him?

Craig: When he refused to be guided by the referendum on the anti-smacking law. That was a very clear point for me. He had the mandate from the people. Overwhelmingly so, yet he refused to take action. You have to see that in one of two lights. Both were a factor. First of all, there was a certain inherent arrogance in it that I didn’t like. It said: I’m cleverer than the people of the country.

Campbell: Or that there may be more important issues in play here, that single-issue zealots simply do not comprehend?



A disgusting response that reveals Campbell doesn't think much about democracy. So it must be very hard to comprehend that an 88% vote, with a more than 56% turnout is important and the fact that John Key ignored it is a very valid reason to think National has lost its way. It was also a turning point for me, when that level of response, in spite of all the campaigning and media support for the other view still lost so badly, and to see National and John Key brush it off like Campbell does here reveals a very big problem - the inability to understand other points of view. Campbell's loose comment, rather rude and actually irrelvant to Craig's response is arrogance of the highest order. A good interviewer may have, rather than criticising the position, seek to uncover more about what was described as a pivotal moment to actually bring something new to the table. Git.

Campbell: "But here’s the thing, Colin. If you truly are a new force in politics, surely you should win your right to represent people on your own merit, and do so against all comers. Agreed?"

Oh, how clever to try to make winning a seat an issue of personal merit. Say nothing of the default position of the media which is using and abusing it's power to ridicule and misrepresent much of what Craig says. Furthermore, entry of a new political party is extremely difficult. There is no electoral funding (that the established parties get) and it takes time to develop the resources and coherency that the incumbent parties have by virtue of being around for so long.

"Campbell: Why not act on that faith? "

Another stupid, condescending and deliberately stereotypical thing to say. Firstly, to go with the big bogeyman - "what if this candidate has CHRISTIAN VALUES"? Heck, that sounds scary. Why is it scary to have Christian values? What is so scary about the fact that Colin Craig used to go to church as a kid. Was the story of the Good Samaritan so scary to the anti-christian bigots out there, or is it that they secretly fantasize about crucifying good people, and don't want to blow the gig. Or is it that they don't like the idea that adultery, dishonesty, murder and envy of the neighbour should be considered a sin? But he challenge to "act on that faith" was a clumsy attempt to try to have Colin declare he shouldn't actually do anything to win a seat, other than pray. It was a clumsy attempt to set up some kind of hypocritical catch-out. This is not what faith is about, and faith doesn't become a replacement for action. Colin Craig missed an opportunity to call him an idiot (or warmonger) for making that kind of statement.

I wont bother with the rest of the piece. Suffice to say that Gordon Campbell's questions as outlined above were pathetic and disrespectful and somewhat arrogant. Fine for blogs and blogging, not so fine for "professional journalism".

Gordon Campbell - The nonobjective media

And just for balance, here's where I said something nice about him.  It was April 16, 2009: Bula Gordon Campbell