I read this article on the NZ Herald site this morning.
Okay - some words that should now have been used in this article:
- 'row'; where is the row? Where is the point of contention? Both Mr Cunliffe and Family First NZ are in agreement.
- 'accused'; I quote "McCroskie said Family First NZ believed Cunliffe acted correctly.". Does this sound like an accusation? Hardly.
This article has been deliberately written to twist the truth and to evoke a public response based on a false premise.
I challenge the NZ Herald to remove this article, or at least publish an accurate account of the facts, and I shall be contacting David Fisher to ask why he wrote the article in this fashion.
I hope Family First NZ will be posting something about this on their website soon.
Update:
For your information, here is the letter I emailed to Mr Fisher:
RE: Article 'MP in smack row' - 01/07/07
Hi David,
I'd really love to know why you used the words 'row' and 'accused' in your article 'MP in smack row'.
It is quite clear from the facts you present that there is no 'row'; Family First NZ (McCoskrie) and Mr Cunliffe do not appear to be in contention or at odds.You use the word 'accused' twice, and yet the following statement - albeit tacked on at the very end - "McCroskie said Family First NZ believed Cunliffe acted correctly" is far from an accusation, and at face value seems to be supporting his actions.
Are there some facts that you've failed to report? Or are you trying to stir up trouble? It appears to me to be the latter, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Either way, as it stands, this is a shocking piece of reporting.
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Dan Willis.
Update 02/07/07:
Monday morning has an article on this incident by Audrey Young. A few more facts and a little less supposition.
Audrey shows a little more restraint; 'controversy' is a little less controversial than 'row', and no accusations to be seen. Nonetheless, this is a non-issue based on little more than hearsay.
