Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
I recall huge swathes of disinformation and crying on here about Labour buying off journalists.
How about NZME eh? As Grenon continues his antivax campaign
View: https://bsky.app/profile/tmurphynz.bsky.social/post/3mfzt7ip2js2y
How about NZME eh? As Grenon continues his antivax campaign
View: https://bsky.app/profile/tmurphynz.bsky.social/post/3mfzt7ip2js2y
Did you read the article? Thought it was quite balanced and the writer made some valid points.
What parts did you disagree with?
No surprises you found it balanced.
I found it pointless speculation targeted at painting a particular outcome. One that favours a conspiracy and is trying to point the finger at Labour.
The headline is already framing a conspiracy. Grenon is involved in the Centrist which is outspoken in the Covid conspiracy world and the NZ response to the pandemic
how about nzme taken over by National and Jim Grenon?
Which is really quite disturbing don't you think Rick?
Thoughts? Rick?
Here's an analysis from good old chat gpt @Rick O’Shay
This is a good piece to analyse because it’s not overtly polemical, but it does use a number of framing techniques that subtly guide the reader toward certain conclusions — especially around uncertainty, blame, and suspicion.
I’ll break this into clear parts:
Leads the reader to suspect concealment or wrongdoing, before any evidence is presented.
Throughout the piece:
Plants ideas like:
…without having to substantiate them.
This is a classic “insinuation framing” technique.
Encourages readers to interpret lack of comment as evidence of guilt or concealment, which is not logically valid.
Anchors the reader emotionally after they’ve absorbed the framing
Makes the policy discussion feel personally harmful and avoidable
This is narrative anchoring — powerful but not statistically representative.
Builds a moral reversal narrative:
The article says:
Creates a risk amplification bias:
Bias toward “change would likely have been better”
Blurs line between:
This subtly reframes public health policy as potentially oppressive.
The article repeatedly emphasises:
Moves responsibility toward a single decision-maker, which simplifies a complex system into a personal accountability narrative.
Justifies the article itself filling that vacuum with hypotheses and possibilities.
To be fair, the piece does include:
BUT:
These are often:
Creates an appearance of balance while narrative momentum still leans toward doubt and criticism.
References to:
Extends the framing from past decision → present controversy
Elevates issue from:
The article is not outright misinformation, but it guides the reader toward a specific interpretation using these combined frames:
“Why won’t he say?” → implies concealment
Focus on one individual instead of system
Anecdotes outweigh statistical framing
Past decisions judged with later knowledge
“What if” scenarios skewed toward harm avoidance
Reframing critics as validated
This piece sits in a space that looks like investigative analysis, but structurally it leans toward:
“accountability + suspicion” framing
rather than
neutral reconstruction of decision-making under uncertainty
It doesn’t fabricate facts, but it selects, orders, and frames them in a way that nudges the reader toward:
This is a good piece to analyse because it’s not overtly polemical, but it does use a number of framing techniques that subtly guide the reader toward certain conclusions — especially around uncertainty, blame, and suspicion.
I’ll break this into clear parts:
1. Headline Framing (Very Important)
What this does:
- Uses “mystery” framing → implies something hidden or unresolved
- Uses repeated “why won’t he say?” → suggests withholding or secrecy
- Focuses on a single individual (Ashley Bloomfield) rather than system-wide decision-making
Effect:
Leads the reader to suspect concealment or wrongdoing, before any evidence is presented.2. Framing Through Questions Instead of Claims
Throughout the piece:
What this does:
- Uses loaded questions instead of assertions
- Raises possibilities without needing to prove them
Effect:
Plants ideas like:- political interference
- deliberate decisions
- hidden reasoning
…without having to substantiate them.
This is a classic “insinuation framing” technique.
3. “Silence = Suspicion” Framing
What this does:
- Presents two interpretations:
- benign (“nothing to add”)
- suspicious (“something to hide”)
- The structure emphasises the negative interpretation
- “fuels speculation” legitimises suspicion
Effect:
Encourages readers to interpret lack of comment as evidence of guilt or concealment, which is not logically valid.4. Emotional Testimony Placement
What this does:
- Uses individual anecdote late in the article
- Positioned after long discussion of policy and uncertainty
Effect:
Anchors the reader emotionally after they’ve absorbed the framing Makes the policy discussion feel personally harmful and avoidableThis is narrative anchoring — powerful but not statistically representative.
5. Validation of Previously Marginalised Views
What this does:
- Reframes a group previously criticised as now justified
- Suggests:
- authorities were wrong
- critics were unfairly treated
Effect:
Builds a moral reversal narrative:- “They were right all along”
- “Authorities ignored legitimate concerns”
6. Selective Emphasis on Harm vs Scale
The article says:
- “side effects were rare”
- but emphasises:
- “devastating impacts”
- “rushing into emergency care”
- “coerced”
What this does:
- Acknowledges rarity briefly
- Focuses heavily on severity and emotion
Effect:
Creates a risk amplification bias:- Rare events feel more common and systemic
7. Counterfactual Speculation (One-Sided)
What this does:
- Imagines positive alternate outcomes if advice followed
- Acknowledges speculation (“no time machine”), but still presents scenarios
Missing balance:
- Less vivid or less emotionally compelling counterfactuals for:
- increased deaths
- overwhelmed hospitals
Effect:
Bias toward “change would likely have been better”8. Framing of Coercion
What this does:
- Introduces subjective perception (“felt coerced”)
- Places it alongside factual reporting
Effect:
Blurs line between:- policy requirements
- personal experience of coercion
This subtly reframes public health policy as potentially oppressive.
9. Authority vs Accountability Framing
The article repeatedly emphasises:
- Bloomfield received advice
- didn’t act
- didn’t communicate
What’s downplayed:
- system complexity
- collective decision-making
- uncertainty in evidence
Effect:
Moves responsibility toward a single decision-maker, which simplifies a complex system into a personal accountability narrative.10. Use of “Vacuum” Framing
What this does:
- Suggests:
- lack of explanation = problem
- vacuum invites speculation
Effect:
Justifies the article itself filling that vacuum with hypotheses and possibilities.11. Strategic Use of Balance (But Not Neutrality)
To be fair, the piece does include:
- uncertainty language
- competing expert views
- public health trade-offs
BUT:
These are often:
- placed mid-article
- less emotionally salient
- less repeated than the core framing
Effect:
Creates an appearance of balance while narrative momentum still leans toward doubt and criticism.12. Political Reinforcement Layer
References to:
- Winston Peters
- Simeon Brown
What this does:
- Introduces current political actors calling for accountability
- Reinforces the idea that:
- this is still unresolved
- further investigation is warranted
Effect:
Extends the framing from past decision → present controversy13. Legal Framing
What this does:
- Introduces legal doubt
- Suggests potential rights violations
Effect:
Elevates issue from:- policy debate → possible legal wrongdoing
Overall Framing Summary
The article is not outright misinformation, but it guides the reader toward a specific interpretation using these combined frames:
Primary Narrative Being Built
- Important safety advice existed
- It wasn’t acted on or communicated
- A key figure (Bloomfield) hasn’t explained why
- This lack of explanation is suspicious
- Some harm may have been avoidable
- Critics at the time may have been justified
Key Biases / Techniques Used
1. Suspicion framing
“Why won’t he say?” → implies concealment
2. Personalisation
Focus on one individual instead of system
3. Emotional amplification
Anecdotes outweigh statistical framing
4. Retrospective certainty
Past decisions judged with later knowledge
5. Selective counterfactuals
“What if” scenarios skewed toward harm avoidance
6. Legitimising dissent
Reframing critics as validated
Bottom Line
This piece sits in a space that looks like investigative analysis, but structurally it leans toward:
“accountability + suspicion” framingrather than
neutral reconstruction of decision-making under uncertaintyIt doesn’t fabricate facts, but it selects, orders, and frames them in a way that nudges the reader toward:
So you don't think that an explanation and accountability are that important regarding the issue of myocardial infarction? And that Ash sat on the risk for way way too long.
The reason I ask is that it so happens we had a case in the family after a second dose. 14yo. I can pretty much guarantee the child's mother and grandmother would not have allowed it if the risks had been known. They obviously were known but sat on.
I think it's fair to ask Ash why he did that. No conspiracy and nothing to do with Labour. Ash was the NZ Director General Of Health advising the Govt.
As for Grenon, don't know a lot about him but based on your comments he appears to be right of centre. I assume he qualifies in that the same way the Guardian for example can be described as left of centre.
Don't have a problem with either. Each to their own I guess.
Can you ask it to do a review of Hamlet?Here's an analysis from good old chat gpt @Rick O’Shay
This is a good piece to analyse because it’s not overtly polemical, but it does use a number of framing techniques that subtly guide the reader toward certain conclusions — especially around uncertainty, blame, and suspicion.
I’ll break this into clear parts:
1. Headline Framing (Very Important)
What this does:
- Uses “mystery” framing → implies something hidden or unresolved
- Uses repeated “why won’t he say?” → suggests withholding or secrecy
- Focuses on a single individual (Ashley Bloomfield) rather than system-wide decision-making
Effect:
2. Framing Through Questions Instead of Claims
Throughout the piece:
What this does:
- Uses loaded questions instead of assertions
- Raises possibilities without needing to prove them
Effect:
- political interference
- deliberate decisions
- hidden reasoning
…without having to substantiate them.
This is a classic “insinuation framing” technique.
3. “Silence = Suspicion” Framing
What this does:
But:
- Presents two interpretations:
- benign (“nothing to add”)
- suspicious (“something to hide”)
- The structure emphasises the negative interpretation
- “fuels speculation” legitimises suspicion
Effect:
4. Emotional Testimony Placement
What this does:
- Uses individual anecdote late in the article
- Positioned after long discussion of policy and uncertainty
Effect:
This is narrative anchoring — powerful but not statistically representative.
5. Validation of Previously Marginalised Views
What this does:
- Reframes a group previously criticised as now justified
- Suggests:
- authorities were wrong
- critics were unfairly treated
Effect:
This is a strong retrospective legitimisation frame.
- “They were right all along”
- “Authorities ignored legitimate concerns”
6. Selective Emphasis on Harm vs Scale
The article says:
- “side effects were rare”
- but emphasises:
- “devastating impacts”
- “rushing into emergency care”
- “coerced”
What this does:
- Acknowledges rarity briefly
- Focuses heavily on severity and emotion
Effect:
- Rare events feel more common and systemic
7. Counterfactual Speculation (One-Sided)
What this does:
- Imagines positive alternate outcomes if advice followed
- Acknowledges speculation (“no time machine”), but still presents scenarios
Missing balance:
- Less vivid or less emotionally compelling counterfactuals for:
- increased deaths
- overwhelmed hospitals
Effect:
8. Framing of Coercion
What this does:
- Introduces subjective perception (“felt coerced”)
- Places it alongside factual reporting
Effect:
- policy requirements
- personal experience of coercion
This subtly reframes public health policy as potentially oppressive.
9. Authority vs Accountability Framing
The article repeatedly emphasises:
- Bloomfield received advice
- didn’t act
- didn’t communicate
What’s downplayed:
- system complexity
- collective decision-making
- uncertainty in evidence
Effect:
10. Use of “Vacuum” Framing
What this does:
- Suggests:
- lack of explanation = problem
- vacuum invites speculation
Effect:
11. Strategic Use of Balance (But Not Neutrality)
To be fair, the piece does include:
- uncertainty language
- competing expert views
- public health trade-offs
BUT:
These are often:
- placed mid-article
- less emotionally salient
- less repeated than the core framing
Effect:
12. Political Reinforcement Layer
References to:
- Winston Peters
- Simeon Brown
What this does:
- Introduces current political actors calling for accountability
- Reinforces the idea that:
- this is still unresolved
- further investigation is warranted
Effect:
13. Legal Framing
What this does:
- Introduces legal doubt
- Suggests potential rights violations
Effect:
- policy debate → possible legal wrongdoing
Overall Framing Summary
The article is not outright misinformation, but it guides the reader toward a specific interpretation using these combined frames:
Primary Narrative Being Built
- Important safety advice existed
- It wasn’t acted on or communicated
- A key figure (Bloomfield) hasn’t explained why
- This lack of explanation is suspicious
- Some harm may have been avoidable
- Critics at the time may have been justified
Key Biases / Techniques Used
1. Suspicion framing
“Why won’t he say?” → implies concealment
2. Personalisation
Focus on one individual instead of system
3. Emotional amplification
Anecdotes outweigh statistical framing
4. Retrospective certainty
Past decisions judged with later knowledge
5. Selective counterfactuals
“What if” scenarios skewed toward harm avoidance
6. Legitimising dissent
Reframing critics as validated
Bottom Line
This piece sits in a space that looks like investigative analysis, but structurally it leans toward:
rather than
It doesn’t fabricate facts, but it selects, orders, and frames them in a way that nudges the reader toward:
Bottom line is
Ashley Bloomfield had received information on the risk of myocardial infarction in younger people with more than 1 vaccine shot
That information was not passed onto Govt nor the public for a considerable period of time during which those younger people were being encouraged to have second shots.
That information was not passed on
I found this a very thoughtful article for Anzac Day
thebluereview.substack.com
On Borrowed Time and Borrowed Memories
How Can You Fail to Forget a Sacrifice You Never Knew?
thebluereview.substack.com
Bottom line is you and that article don't have all the facts
And they are?
AI is a people pleaser. If you have a particular slant, it will provide its subjective answers that correspond with what it understands from you from previous interactions.
Ask it cold hard facts and figures, it will be more black and white
Ask it cold hard facts and figures, it will be more black and white
I did
Read the ai summary
Waatea vs nzme is false equivalence. You probably think national is left
Grenon is far right. Very far right. So, no to the guardian.
Presumably you can ask the commission yourself. Serious matters deserve answers. Best they are fact based.
Gotta say, I read your chat analysis several times and I can't find any facts that are in dispute
Ash withheld critical safety information from not only the Govt but also the public, is that incorrect?
So did I
Similar threads
Politics
🤡 Donald Trump
