The combination of all these policies means that the mass media is generally neo-imperialist, justifying the right of the “international community� (i.e. global capital, led by the United States of America and the United Kingdom) to indiscriminately impose a liberal agenda on non-conforming states - the good, the bad and the ugly.

None of this in itself amounts to a condemnation of the mass media. If liberal neo-imperialism is a good thing for humanity, then so is the dominance of the western mass media organisations. But if neo-imperialism is a bad thing, then we need to start looking at exactly what role the media plays in the regime, and how it chooses to play. Then we find that the western media has appallingly low standards of journalism, suppresses crucial information, promotes the cult of personality and all in all functions as nothing more than a crude propaganda arm of the regime. This may be a worry to those (like Toad perhaps) who hope to reform the regime from within. But looking longer term, and taking the wider view, one can see that the condition of the mass media in New Zealand is just one more sign that the regime as a whole is heading inexorably to collapse and destruction.

Cough….splutter….

What?!?!?

Have you not seen TVNZ and TV3 News?

Fox is right wing….

As an aside, I don’t know whether anyone else has drawn attention to the fact that the media empires felt threatened by the EFA in ways which extended well beyond the province of parliamentary politics. The logic of the EFA could equally well apply in all areas of business. Why not cap the advertising budgets of hardware chains? Why should small hardware merchants offering good products and service be driven out of business by the advertising power of Mitre 10 and Bunnings, for instance? Just one more reason why large business corporations, and the media empires, were so solidly opposed to the EFA.

And I still cannot quite fathom why the Labour-led government decided to engage in a suicidal confrontation with APN, Fairfax et al over this issue. Again, the only explanation I have is that they were reacting irrationally to the involvment of a small group of people who they believe “bond women in slavery and kill queers”.

I do indeed, Geoff, and the NZ Herald, in particular, has put up the challenge. All mainstream media is right wing. That is not surprising, because it is controlled by people who are vastly rich and don’t really want to share their wealth with us ordinary people.

The fundie Christians hate the Greens too, because we believe in tolerance and social justice, rather than bonding women in slavery, killing queers and an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.

So there is an axis of interest between the mainstream media’ neo-conservative interests and those of the fundie Christian bigots - it is to “keep those bloody Greens out of Government because they potentially threaten our respective interests”.

Which we do. And will continue to do.

And I also agree that the Greens should have been tougher with it in negotiations with Labour.

But, in principle, it is sound. Vested interests should not be able to buy votes because they have more money to do so than anyone else, and donations to political parties should be publicly transparent to ensure voters know who may be buying the support of a particular party in their personal or corporate interests.

Unfortunately, the Act we ended up with is extraordinarily bureaucratic, and has loopholes (that maybe Labour wanted).

But at least it is better than having over $1m of hidden proxy advertising for a particular political party courtesy of a particularly nutty right wing fundie Christian fringe group who are waiting (impatiently) for the rapture.

That Key and Brash colluded with that bunch of fundie nutcases for over $1m proxy Nat advertising in 2005 is an absolute disgrace.

It’s a bit like if McCain accepted proxy funding from the KKK (oops, sorry John McC, you might have. The US laws are even worse, so you would not necessarily know anyway).

APN and Fairfax don’t need access to second or third party advertising copy in order to shape the outcome of an election. The can do so using editorials, regular political columnists, specially commissioned opinion pieces and selective political reporting. That is the reality of the democratic process. Democratic political parties need the support or acquiescence of the mass media if they are to have any hope of gaining and holding state power. (Winston Peters has been able to retain a political toehold for New Zealand First by confronting the media, but that strategy has never been able to deliver him anything like a majority of the popular vote. And there is certainly no room on that narrow ledge for both Winston Peters and Helen Clark.). Winston Peters aside, any modern democratic political party that attempts to take on the media may as well be driven by a death wish.

The Greens won’t necessarily go down to defeat alongside Labour, partly because the Green parliamentarians have adopted what the media consider to be a more responsible attitude in the current parliament, and partly because APN’s political strategists recognise that launching an offensive against a small party like the Greens would not be a good look. To do so would create the impression of a bunch of right-wing bullies engaged in a general vendetta against the left. And perhaps more importantly, the media don’t want to bring about a situation in which the radical left stands entirely outside of the parliamentary tent. But post-election, in the event of electoral success for the National Party, the Greens will still be left in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to follow Labour into the political wilderness, or to do a deal with a triumphant right-wing coalition.

It is naive to assume that the Electoral Finance Act heralds a return to a mythical “level playing field� in New Zealand politics. In practical terms, all it is likely to achieve is the ousting of the fifth Labour government. And it does nothing to address the real problem for democratic politicians, the elephant in the room which is the power of the APN-Fairfax media duopoly. The good news is that the more that APN (publishers of the New Zealand Herald and New Zealand Listener) try to dominate the political process in New Zealand, the more fragile their position becomes. (See “Democracy under threat� at http://www.republican.co.nz )

Great (and highly informative) post, sadly you are wasting your time here, the Greens are not interested in facts.

For some reason they are against free speech.

Yes people can still be involved in issue based campaign, but they can not seek to be involved in the democratic process by encouraging someone to vote or not vote for any particular party etc.

With regard to donations of $10,000 or less to a particular political party you will never know. That is my point.

A corporate with 20 separate subsidaries could give give $200,000 to New Zealand First ( or the Greens) by making separate donations of $10,000 ( one form each subsidary) and the public of New Zealand need never know. The EFA does not stop this. What is dishonest about this legislation is that MPs who support have argued that there will be greater disclosure, when there need not. That is misleading.

The only person who need know is the financial agent of NZF and he has no duty to disclose. So how will you find out?