Editorial bias

Received today from Russell Garbutt [email].

Have readers of the ODT online site noticed the failure of the ODT Online Editor to acknowledge that they are abridging comments or simply wiping them?

Two examples of mine recently spring to mind and the context shows where the sympathies of the ODT lies. The first was in response to a comment made by speedfreak43 who noted that the GV of Carisbrook at the time the dear old DCC masquerading as a body acting in the interests of the ratepayers was about $1.5m when the purchase price from the ORFU who really run the DCC, was $7m. This is what I wrote, which simply vanished into thin air:

“speedfreak43, I think you are pretty close to the mark with the recollection of a GV of about $1.5m for Carisbrook. That makes this story even more worth pursuing by the ODT. Here we have a previous owner in the financial doodah for $7m – interestingly because of their purchases of Auckland bars to carry out their pokie fund rort – bailed out by a Council decision to purchase at a price many times more than what is clearly a market price. All backed up by “valuations” that appear to be nothing other than part of the shonky deals done behind closed doors. All replicated almost exactly with Luggate and Jack’s Point. Bearing in mind that every $1m of spend without income that this Council does equates to 1% on the rates and you can see that these 3 property deals alone have cost Dunedin ratepayers close on 15% of rates increases. My question again – who is going to hold these Councillors accountable?”

Now why this sensitivity? The ORFU were involved in a rort and everyone knows that. Were there shonky deals done behind closed doors? Well, we have Carisbrook, Jacks Point and Luggate as examples that are in the public domain. Is it that the ODT don’t want some Councillors to be exposed for what they are? Well here my posting in another thread with the deleted portion emboldened.

“If the promoters are well aware in advance of sound issues at the stadium and have prepared accordingly, then a simple question remains unanswered. Why do patrons who shell out money to see and hear acts at the stadium rate the sound quality over the PA systems as “abhorrent”? While pondering that answer, why is it that, after we were all told that the surface was the most high-tech, durable and incredible surface ever devised that the recent soccer fixture rated the surface as being the worst they had played on? When considering the answer to that question, readers may like to consider just how much they have paid in their rates to achieve these levels of mediocrity. Perhaps Malcolm Farry and the stadium Councillors could provide some answers?”

So, the ODT had printed stories about the sound quality and the turf quality so they couldn’t take exception to that, but they didn’t want Farry and the Stadium Councillors being asked to be held accountable.

This I suggest, is a very clear indication of where the ODT’s sympathies and probable support will be for any forthcoming Council elections. Can it logically be seen in any other way?

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
23.1.13 Editorial spin, disagrees?!
1.1.13 Journalist sums up 2012, against the ‘odds’ how does it rate ?
10.6.12 What won’t get printed on ORT’s front page (pssst, about the Albatross…….)
3.8.12 Extraordinary editorials
28.7.12 Pokie fraud: ODT fails to notice own backyard
26.6.12 Defamation
7.5.12 ODT: “the cupboard has been bare” [still is]
4.2.12 Editor pitches for rugby nursery
31.12.11 Dishonourable mention
4.10.11 Something hyped in the news
[the list goes on . . . ]

Editorial Note:
When the What if? moderators enter “abridge” in their dashboard search box up come 74 items of observation and complaint on multiple threads about comments being abridged or not published after submission to ODT Online.
Spot the trend.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr