A Weird Request.

datePosted on 19:56, May 28th, 2010 by Pablo

Some readers may have taken note of the fact that there is an alternative blog awards competition underway, created because the Qantas Media Awards blog category has become a bad joke. In a comment made on my last post about strategic culture, someone from the alternative blog awards organising committee (the so-called NZ Bloggers Union) has urged KP to enter the competition. I want to ask readers whether that is worth doing.

I say this because I am not a fan of awards competitions of any sort outside of sports and military affairs. But that is my prejudice. The criteria for entry is that nominees provide 4 posts from 2009 as material for the judges to consider. The details of the competitition can be found here:

http://airnewzealandbestblogaward.blogspot.com/

I can think of four posts written by Anita that alone could provide could material for the judges, and can say the same thing about Lew’s writing. My personal opinion is that some of the things they have written stand out as among the best NZ socio-political blogging in recent years, with a few of their posts being absolute game-changers when it comes to informed public discourse on given subjects. But, as I have said to them, I am not sure that the submission is worth doing because the deck may be stacked in favour of larger, more rabble-rousing and partisan blogs that prefer polemics and diatribes rather than reasoned debate.

I have two questions for those who may be interested in these awards: 1) should KP enter the competition? 2) If so, what four posts would you select as the most outstanding and representative examples of what KP has to offer?

The deadline for entries is June 1.

No offense will be taken if readers opine that we should not enter. I only put this out to the readership because I am of two minds about the whole thing and could not select four representative posts in any event.

57 Responses to “A Weird Request.”

  1. Phil Sage on May 28th, 2010 at 20:39

    Pablo – Take a look at the judges. They have secured both sides of the political spectrum. I strongly believe you should enter. The alternative to involvement is leaving the field to the rabble rousers.

    Second question may take a bit longer but add these to the short list

    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/05/where-entitlements-become-rights-and-rights-outweigh-responsibilities/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/05/does-new-zealand-have-a-strategic-culture/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/05/cannibalising-society/

  2. reader on May 28th, 2010 at 20:50

    You bloggers want to be read as widely as possible right?
    What’s more these blogs deserve as wide a readership as possible. When I saw the blogger’s awards mentioned above I immediately thought of some of the powerful,carefully reasoned rhetoric I’ve read on here.

    So, my opinion, for what it’s worth, is enter. Who cares who wins, if the judging is competent, you might even be surprised! But use the opportunity to spread your words.

    I stumbled upon this site myself, and always return to catch the latest.

  3. NZ Bloggers Union on May 28th, 2010 at 21:20

    I find that anyone not wanting to enter awards and then protesting that they do not enter awards out of some principle not to is usually someone who is afraid of losing.

    There will be many losers and only one winner so bloody hurry up and enter the thing!!

  4. reader on May 28th, 2010 at 21:21

    Oh, and off the top of hy head: Cannibalising NZ Society for the money proxy, the positive/negative policy tea-party one by Pablo (can’t remember what it was called) and, hyper-sensitive/insensitive.

    Can’t get into the archives at the moment so it has to be what’s uppermost in my memory.

  5. Tim Selwyn on May 28th, 2010 at 21:22

    Selecting four (or so) best blog posts from last year is probably a helpful exercise for bloggers – regardless of whether it is for an award or not. I should do it as well – even though I can’t enter.

    I encourage all bloggers who have said anything worth reading to enter – not just the “rabble rousers.”

  6. Scott on May 28th, 2010 at 21:26

    As a blogger I’m in two minds about this. On the one hand, the make-up of the judging panel suggests the winning entry may well be a blog that shouts a lot.

    But then I may be wrong in thinking that.

    And what have you got to lose? If winning or becoming a finalist gets this site more attention and gets more traffic, that can’t be a bad thing. Most of us write because we want someome to read our work.

    Don’t ask me for a list of the best posts. Too many good ones to choose.

  7. Barnsley Bill on May 28th, 2010 at 21:53

    Putting to one side the towering conceit.
    You should definately enter. Your conceit may well be justified, this is a very good blog. It often challenges my beliefs and the kiwi blogzone would without a doubt be much diminished if you were not participating.
    There is room for those of us that shout and scream AND the reasoned offerings found here and one or two other places.

  8. Pablo on May 28th, 2010 at 22:00

    NZBU: You appear to not have understood my post. I am not protesting against your award. I simply stated that I am divided on the subject of entering because I have issues with awards contests in principle (can you not understand that?), and I fear it will be waste of time and effort to find 4 representative posts for a contest that may focus on raw traffic figures and the impact of shouting–WO is a case in point on the impact of shouting (I see it as the “train wreak” factor), and KB has the numbers by a country mile.

    Since your awards do not distinguish between big and small, polite and ranting, non-partisan versus partisan, I am left with the uncertainty as to whether a self-nomination is a good thing. Quite frankly, you should have specified that nominations had to come from someone other than the nominated bloggers themselves. That way you would have had independent submission of the representative posts as well as the nomination itself. But the way it is the event seems to be an exercise in self-promotion, something that I am uncomfortable with. I do understand the view that if one does not promote him/herself, no one else is going to do it, but then again, I also believe that people will recognise value when they see it and independently recognise it as such.

    reader and scott: I see your point but my view is that word of mouth is better than advertising. I would rather have people stumble upon the site and refer it to discerning friends than use an awards competition as a springboard to increased traffic. On the other hand, we do want to be read and hope to have an impact on informed discussion of NZ-focused subjects. That is another reason why I am of two minds on this.

    I guess it is the nebulous selection criteria that has me of two minds. I do not doubt the honesty of the judges and see that a broad spectrum sample of views was inherent in their selection. But given the range for what passes as socio-politico commentary in NZ, I am not sure that KP fits the profile of a viable nominee (or as NZBU would have it, a potential loser). Thus the reason for the post, and I am thankful and encouraged by the response so far (I am waiting for Russell the McCarthyite to weigh in on how much we suck in so many ways).

    BB: Not conceit, just a genuine uncertainty about the venture. I appreciate your encouragement otherwise.

  9. NZ Bloggers Union on May 28th, 2010 at 23:06

    Pablo

    Jesus Christ. You’ve spent longer analysing the whole venture and in effect promoting yourself which in that time you could have gone back, cut and pasted 4 simple links and sent them to my email address.

    I haven’t asked for your first born child, just to simply enter a competition.

    NZBU

  10. BLiP on May 28th, 2010 at 23:37

    Good grief – talk about paralysis by analysis – get your bloody entry forms in – think of it as a part of the Kiwipolitco strategic culture – I reckon you’ll be in with an excellent chance.

  11. Deborah on May 29th, 2010 at 00:29

    Enter the damned awards.

    I agree, the Qantas nominees, or two of them at least, are very odd. But even so, surely that’s not a reason for not entering these awards.

    /toddles off to talk to THM colleagues about nominations…

  12. freddy on May 29th, 2010 at 00:32

    Yes do it, just do it!
    As the fat freddies say “do it for the love of. . .” justice; compassion; freedom; equality; understanding; open mindedness; clear thought and straight communication; dignity; decency; respect in discourse. . . political sanity . . . that hard rain is fallin now and kp is one of the few shelters from it. If things carry on as they are it’s gonna take 25 years to dig this country out of the political dumbness that its getting bogged down in. Tamati Kruger on morning report today was onto it when he said the tune is boring – unfortunately everyone hums it because its all they know. . .

  13. Stephen on May 29th, 2010 at 09:03

    I really think that winning an award from such a panel would be a badge of shame. Let the shouters and screamers fester in their irrelevance.

  14. Tim on May 29th, 2010 at 09:45

    Picking 4 posts would be rather arbitrary.

    The advertising factor can’t bring much good so far as I can see.

    Awards, rankings, etc are worthless/pointless—especially in this realm.

    Trust your instinct, don’t bother with it.

  15. Tiger Mountain on May 29th, 2010 at 10:19

    My view is this competition should not be touched with a 40 foot pole.
    Some things should be left to be, and Kiwipolitico is one of them.

  16. BLiP on May 29th, 2010 at 11:22

    Would you like the gates of your community constructed of ivory as well, mlud

  17. Pablo on May 29th, 2010 at 12:30

    Hmmm. Seems like I am not alone with my misgivings on this–Besides the thoughts of the skeptical readers who have commented here, PM of NZ and Keeping Stock have the same mixed views as to the validity of the awards and the nomination process.

    Thanks again for sharing your views.

  18. Tom Semmens on May 29th, 2010 at 13:21

    I’m sorry, but anything tainted by association with that convicted criminal Tim Selwyn lacks any credibility whatsoever. End of story.

  19. Pablo on May 29th, 2010 at 14:15

    TomS: I cannot speak to any of the other things Tim may have done but surely you would agree that the sedition conviction was bogus and trumped up, and that his sentence was way too harsh.

    Although I do not agree with his views on a number of issues I certainly have no problem with his involvement in this award. Besides my reservations about awards competitions, it is the nomination process etc. that concerns me.

  20. Tom Semmens on May 29th, 2010 at 15:22

    Pablo: When I look at some of the what are at times frankly over the line and borderline crazy posts he puts up on Tumeke, and consider he was convicted for putting an axe through the PM’s electorate office window, I simply cannot consider him a fit or appropriate person to be involved in judging any sort of public competition.

    And to me that destroys the credibiliy of the overall awards, which in itsef is actually not a bad concept.

  21. Ruth on May 29th, 2010 at 16:50

    I tend to agree with Tom. Although I sometimes agree with Tumeke blog, it is (almost) the flip side of that vile Crusader Rabbit KG fellow’s fascist nonsense.

    The reward is folk reading and commenting on this blog – you don’t need any special accolade.

  22. Lew on May 29th, 2010 at 20:15

    What an interesting discussion. While I share a degree of peeriness about the awards, I’d not be inclined to let that prevent me from entering. The main reason I hadn’t considered entering is due to the time and effort it would take to do so (I’ve been under deadline and have a visitor from overseas this week). But the endorsements from folks on this thread have almost flattered me into doing it. I still reckon DPF will win, but that’s ok. As Tim says, going through and selecting posts is a good exercise in itself.

    But most of the posts people have nominated are from 2010 — the entries need to be from 2009!

    L

  23. Tom Semmens on May 29th, 2010 at 20:51

    I still reckon DPF will win, but that’s ok.

    He is a judge, how does that work??

  24. Pablo on May 29th, 2010 at 21:35

    TomS:
    DPF is not a judge. Matthew Hooten, Bomber, Tim Selwyn, Regan Cunliff and a social butterfly by the name of Ricardo Simich are the judges. The first four are all legit as far as their blogging credentials, although I would hope that their blogs are recused from consideration so as to avoid conflict of interest. As for the Simich fellow, who knows why he was invited–maybe he will stage the awards ceremony.

    In an update on the link cited above the NZBU chap is getting a bit tetchy about concerns such as I have voiced, but he also mentions that DPF is not going to enter KB because he–surprise, surprise–does not believe in awards. Other good bloggers such as Not PC have invited their readers to suggest four outstanding posts for submission.

    If nominations were made by people other than the bloggers themselves, and the representative posts selected by the third party nominators, I would be more comfortable with the process even though it does not distinguish between categories of blog.

  25. Tim Selwyn on May 29th, 2010 at 22:49

    Tom:
    “I’m sorry, but anything tainted by association with that convicted criminal Tim Selwyn lacks any credibility whatsoever. End of story.”
    - If I was convicted of a blogging-related offence then you would have a point. If you don’t think I have any credibility on the issue then you would have to ignore two years of research on the matter: http://www.nzblogosphere.blogspot.com

    “what are at times frankly over the line and borderline crazy posts he puts up on Tumeke”
    - Tom, I will put my best 4 from 2009 up against 4 from 2009 that you think are “over the line and borderline crazy posts” – if you can find any.

  26. Lew on May 29th, 2010 at 23:48

    Pablo, Anita and I have discussed this to some extent, and I’ve put together a long-list of posts I think are worthy enough to be submitted. But to be honest it’s hard to objectively judge this stuff. So in the spirit of bloggish collaboration, we want to know what you think, too. Here’s my list, roughly in chronological order:

    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/01/theres-nothing-new-to-see-here/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/01/the-case-for-increasing-nzdf-presence-in-afghanistan/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/01/zaoui-the-lessons/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/01/friends-dont-let-friends-rape/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/02/whither-labour/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/02/direct-action-praxis-and-the-threshold-of-toleration/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/02/media-biz-09-pr-fail/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/02/family-values-a-code-for-anti-welfare-rhetoric/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/03/political-identities-an-apology-and-more-on-the-money-proxy/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/03/a-green-neo-realist-foreign-policy-manifesto/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/05/raising-democratic-children/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/05/in-which-i-support-christine-rankin/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/05/memo-to-the-left-the-maori-party-is-not-your-enemy/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/05/deconstructing-democracy-introduction/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/06/putting-the-referendum-in-context/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/07/a-note-to-paula-bennett-her-cabinet-colleagues-and-their-staff/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/07/uncitizens/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/08/a-definition-of-political-correctness-in-25-words/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/09/does-new-zealand-have-public-intellectuals/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/08/bipolarity-unipolarity-and-the-coming-usbric-multipolar-world/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/09/democratic-service-and-repair/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/10/the-false-promise-of-asian-values/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/11/is-nz-the-least-corrupt-place-on-earth/
    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/12/blue-collars-red-necks-triply-flawed/

    Feel free to nominate others, also. So — what would you submit?

    L

  27. freddy on May 30th, 2010 at 11:12

    Anita’s blog ‘friends don’t let friends rape’ should be one of your four for so many reasons. . .

  28. Pablo on May 30th, 2010 at 13:28

    freddy:
    Both Lew and I agree that Anita’s rape post has to be on the final list (Anita is on leave and has freed us to make the choices).

    So that’s one down and three to go.

  29. Tom Semmens on May 30th, 2010 at 13:48

    Pablo – thanks for the correction, I should pay more attention.

    @Tim Selwyn – Scott Y at imperatorfish puts it beautifully…

    “…It’s hard to take seriously any award where the judges include two angry left-wingers at the extreme end of the spectrum (one of whom was imprisoned for putting an axe through Helen Clark’s electoral office window), a right-winger for whom I have nothing but contempt, and some other guy I’ve never heard of. I have no desire to be judged by any of these people…”

    Also, do you have permission from Air New Zealand to use their branding and name for your competition? If you don’t, what sort of credibility do you think you have when you use branding without permission (fraudelent behaviour IMHO) combined with a judging panel so succintly summed up by ScottY?

  30. Bruce Hamilton on May 30th, 2010 at 15:30

    My questions would be:-

    Do you feel comfortable being judged by these “peers”?.
    Do you feel comfortable entering a competition whose name arises from the theft of IP from a NZ company?.

    If so, what have you been drinking recently?.

    Bruce Hamilton.

  31. NZ Bloggers Union on May 30th, 2010 at 15:49

    Also, do you have permission from Air New Zealand to use their branding and name for your competition? If you don’t, what sort of credibility do you think you have when you use branding without permission (fraudelent behaviour IMHO).

    Answer – Air NZ have yet to formally complain regarding. Possibly on the basis of the clear disclaimers on the site.

    Question – do you as a blogger get permission from Herald, Stuff, other blogs every time you use their links, or comment on their stories?

    A blogger complaining about apparent theft of IP and ideas must rate up there with an eskimo complaining that the ice is cold.

  32. Bruce Hamilton on May 30th, 2010 at 16:50

    “A blogger complaining about apparent theft of IP and ideas must rate up there with an eskimo complaining that the ice is cold.”

    Apparent?. You’ve acknowledged you didn’t get permission – something typically easily obtainable via email – provided the legitimate owner is comfortable with the proposal.

    Fortunately, I’m not a member of your union. Gutter, meet NZ Bloggers Union.

  33. Scott on May 30th, 2010 at 18:15

    Question – do you as a blogger get permission from Herald, Stuff, other blogs every time you use their links, or comment on their stories?

    Would those be the fair dealing exceptions to copyright infringement under the Copyright Act 1994?

  34. Ag on May 30th, 2010 at 20:16

    Isn’t this the blogging equivalent of reality television? Everything has to be a contest decided by celebrity judges, or a phone or online poll these days.

    What possible purpose would such a contest serve? How would it make NZ blogs better?

    It’s like a televised lawnmowing contest.

  35. Pablo on May 30th, 2010 at 20:25

    Indeed Ag. The more I think about it the more it appears that way.

    I might add that I have seen a number of comments from the NZBU mouthpiece on other blogs as well as this one and am unimpressed with his bullying insult style (always along the lines of characterising those who have misgivings about the competition as “losers who are afraid to lose’).

    That makes me wonder if he is trolling for numbers so as to establish the credibility of his alternative awards. There is nothing wrong with wanting to appear as a credible alternative to the bogus Qantas Media Awards, but the way in which he addresses legitimate concerns about the nomination process is to my mind untoward and a strong disincentive to participate. After all, who wants to help a bully make a name for himself?

  36. Lynn Prentice on May 30th, 2010 at 22:16

    I really am in two minds about this as well. been too lazy to enter any of these things. I was just going to pop up the top 100 posts by unique views and let people vote on a proportional voting system. But I’ve been job changing which chewed my extra hours, and I didn’t get the code done for limiting to emails that commented in 2009.

    However some authors came up with suggestions. Since it takes little effort I will send them in. It is a pity that my hooten post was this year. But we do have a good one looking at air new zealands industial policies that I’m still argung for

  37. Pablo on May 30th, 2010 at 22:55

    Dear All:

    Let me offer to you this scenario as another reason for my concerns:

    A money- or celebrity-hungry blogger sees the failures of the QMA as an opportunity to establish a profitable alternative awards “brand.” He enlists similarly inclined bloggers on a share-of profits basis and an internet entrepeneur, then ropes in a socialite “events manager” to serve as the deciding vote on a five man (no wimin) judging panel on blogs that cover social and political current events. The event’s organiser/celebrity is needed to secure sponsorship for an awards ceremony that in turn is designed to generate advertising revenues and sponsorship for the competition in years to come. If all goes well according to the business plan, the NZBU brand will replace the QMA as the definitive awards arbiter of blog importance/reach/impact. Since the future of media is with the “new” alternative rather than the fossilised “repeater” MSM, there is a generational follow-through that guarantees brand success and steady revenue streams. The genius in the plan is that there are very low start-up costs involved–a web page is virtually free, nominations are voluntary, and if no one enters there is no need for an awards ceremony venue. If there is a pool of nominees, then Mr. Simich can organise a room and media coverage for the awards ceremony. If his media friends show up and report on the event, future sponsorship is virtually guaranteed–who knows, perhaps by the alternative airline mentioned in the awards announcement?

    In other words, it is not about holding a legitimate blogs awards competition. it is about making money off of it.

    Which would explain the bullying response to the concerns mentioned here and elsewhere–NZBU need to pull in the numbers of self-nominees in order to convince potential sponsors that there are consumers of product at the end of the event.

    This of course is just my cynical mind working on a hypothetical scenario. What do you think? And if you think that the scenario is plausible, should I just publish the comment on a separate post as a fair warning to those who may be tempted to enter?

  38. Ag on May 30th, 2010 at 23:46

    In other words, it is not about holding a legitimate blogs awards competition. it is about making money off of it.

    I had been thinking along these lines. It’s always like this for me. Just when I start thinking that entrepreneurship isn’t so bad, along comes another one of these shifty pedlars.

    Along with those real estate TV shows, this is one of the things that makes me wonder if the Khmer Rouge didn’t have a point.

  39. Pablo on May 30th, 2010 at 23:51

    Ag: Easy there bro, the NZBU is not quite on a par of a Khemer Rouge target.

  40. Ag on May 30th, 2010 at 23:55

    Ag: Easy there bro, the NZBU is not quite on a par of a Khemer Rouge target.

    Perhaps not, but the real estate shows surely are. ;)

  41. Tom Semmens on May 31st, 2010 at 09:08

    I might add that I have seen a number of comments from the NZBU mouthpiece on other blogs as well as this one and am unimpressed with his bullying insult style (always along the lines of characterising those who have misgivings about the competition as “losers who are afraid to lose’).

    To be fair, those posts have Tim Selwyn’s fingerprints all over them. I have no problem with Bomber, who is hard out but sane, except for the online company he keeps.

  42. Bruce Hamilton on May 31st, 2010 at 13:33

    In other words, it is not about holding a legitimate blogs awards competition. it is about making money off of it.

    I was also considering the value of attracting future commercial sponsorship to the site. Perhaps all entrants are considered supporters/members of NZ Bloggers Union?. I suspect that, currently, there could be an apostrophe between the “r” and “s”.

    If you call yourself a Union, do you have to comply with any NZ laws, such as registration, or is that only when you charge fees?. Anyone know the size the the union membership?. Any advance on one?.

    Without wishing to cause offence, self-nomination seems intended to trap the vain.

    Ag, I hope you’ve claimed the IP for televised lawn-moving contest, could be a big hit in NZ, as it’s faster than dogs chasing sheep into pens.

  43. Tim Selwyn on May 31st, 2010 at 18:03

    Tom – for someone who proclaimed “end of story” – you do go on, and on. When you find 4 posts of mine from 2009 that meet your description of what I supposedly blog then you might have some credibility. Put up or shut up.

    FYI: I have nothing at all to do with the “NZ Bloggers’ Union” – and my only concern with the blog award process (that I expressed at the time to them) is that the NZBU is an overtly partisan group and that having them as the contact point may deter nominations. Something I hope does not come to pass, because the judging panel is not the NZBU.

  44. Tom Semmens on May 31st, 2010 at 19:38

    Tom – for someone who proclaimed “end of story” – you do go on, and on. When you find 4 posts of mine from 2009 that meet your description of what I supposedly blog then you might have some credibility. Put up or shut up.

    Credibility? excuse me? I’ve got nothing to prove. I’m not the one pushing this dubious “awards”. And my criminal record is completely unblemished unlike you, what with a substantial custodial sentence and all. Let’s not start throwing around “credibility” as a test.

  45. Pablo on May 31st, 2010 at 20:06

    Ok Tom and Tim. It time to call it a day on the feud. Let’s argue about something else, such as the topic of the post.

  46. Pablo on June 1st, 2010 at 15:03

    postscript: I was surprised to see that KP has been entered. I know that Lew thought that the process had some intrinsic worth but did not think that we would actually submit a self-nomination. Oh well. I trust Lew’s judgement even if I would have preferred to have given it a pass.

  47. Lew on June 1st, 2010 at 15:33

    Hang on. I haven’t entered. Where does it say I did?

    Edit: Oh, there it is on the site. You can tell it’s not my entry because it didn’t include this.

    I guess we were put in as a wildcard under this proviso:

    At the Judges’ request the 13 blogs in the Tumeke top 20 as at 31 December 2009 that did not self-nominate are able to be nominated by the Judges as a wildcard finalist. Limit of one per Judge and totally at their discretion.

    So if Pablo’s comments above haven’t angered the Powers That Be too much, we might win without even entering. Strange days.

    L

  48. Bruce Hamilton on June 1st, 2010 at 16:30

    Edit: Oh, there it is on the site. You can tell it’s not my entry because it didn’t include this.

    Maybe I misread, but KP appears in the list of “self-nominated”. The list at the end, excluding the shaded addresses, are the blogs that the judges can select from.

    Not that it really matters, as they appear to make up the rules as they go along.

  49. Pablo on June 1st, 2010 at 16:53

    Lew:

    I’ll drop you an email to discuss this, but here is the deal. I checked on the list of nominees this AM and KP was on it, with four posts–2 from Anita, one from you and one from me. I assumed that you have decided to go for it after all since I did not submit the nomination and Anita is not taking part.

    This only adds to my concerns about the whole event, although it could have been submitted by a well-meaning person who used your long list to make the final choices.

  50. Pablo on June 1st, 2010 at 22:22

    Here is the comment I posted on the NZBU competition web site:

    “Pablo said…
    The two bloggers currently active on Kiwipolitico did not nominate themselves. Would you be so kind as to confirm who actually made the nomination?

    Plus, adding “judges nominees” after the closing date for nominations appears to be playing veeeery loose with the already nebulous rules. That should have been mentioned up-front, as well as the fact that you did (apparently) accept nominations from third parties.”

    Here is the response:

    “NZ Bloggers Union said…
    Pablo

    You are just becoming a pain in Bomber’s little toe.

    Once again we are not asking for your first born child. It’s a friggin competition.

    Perhaps you can run the competition next year. Well perhaps not as you seem to be a humourless dithering unit of wonderment.”

    You can see the full exchange by clicking on the link above but let me just state that something smells badly here.

    For the record: KP did not enter the competition. Someone took four posts and entered us. The NZBU then allowed its judges to select their own “wildcard” nominees without submitting the four posts required of “self” nominees, including their own blogs The list of nominees extends way beyond the original scope of those that focus on politics and current affairs.

    I stand by my assertion that the process was flawed. I now also think that it may be rigged.

  51. Phil Sage on June 2nd, 2010 at 01:19

    Pablo/Lew – Perhaps someone decided you guys should be there. I dont think conspiracy as I cannot see people from so far opposite sides of the spectrum agreeing. More, that they want their competition to succeed with some intelligent blogs. So let it run and see what happens. I did think about getting four of your posts myself but did not get around to it.

  52. freddy on June 2nd, 2010 at 10:42

    kia ora Phil

    “Perhaps someone” – who thinks they don’t need to consider the principles of informed consent or respect for the freedom of others – “decided you guys should be there. . . ”

    . . . who does that someone think they are?

  53. Bruce Hamilton on June 2nd, 2010 at 10:54

    I stand by my assertion that the process was flawed. I now also think that it may be rigged.

    Pablo did not get an answer on the identity of the KP nominator. They should also list the nominators, as clearly “self” has a different definition on their planet.

    I’m not surprised that people may not want to be associated with this shonky and tragic process. It’s even worse that the Quantas awards they condemn.

    I am surprised that people would consider nominating blogs without asking the specific bloggers first. Phil, would you really do that?. Surely you would only want to do that to enemies?.

  54. Phil Sage on June 2nd, 2010 at 11:10

    I am surprised that people would consider nominating blogs without asking the specific bloggers first. Phil, would you really do that?. Surely you would only want to do that to enemies?.

    . . . who does that someone think they are?

    I think there must be something very strange about my attitude then. A blog competition is set up as a mark of disrespect for what is obviously a media driven contest. It asks for nominations. There is nothing dodgy about that imho. I must be mistaken.

  55. Lew on June 2nd, 2010 at 11:20

    I think the point is that it’s perfectly consistent to hold the view that the original award is a shameless exercise in self-promotion, and that the replacement awards are similarly a sham. That’s the view I’ve come around to, and I believe the view that Pablo holds, and the reason neither of us submitted an entry.

    If they want to enter us anyway, or if someone else enters us in accordance with the competition’s rules — such as they are — then we can’t exactly prevent them from doing so. But we can make our position plain, and that’s that we didn’t enter because we don’t have confidence in the integrity of the competition. Whoever wins this award, is seems unlikely it could reasonably be viewed as a genuine recognition by anyone with more than a passing knowledge of blogging.

    If they want to award our blog despite our holding this position, then that’s up to them. But in the highly unlikely event that we did win, then (with apologies to Steve Earle) I’d be prepared to stand on Ricardo Simich’s coffee table and say the same.

    L

  56. freddy on June 2nd, 2010 at 11:23

    lololol! lovely!!

  57. Pablo on June 3rd, 2010 at 14:19

    I finally got around to looking up the NZBU. It was created and is administered by Clint Heine and its officers are DPF, Whale Oil and Blair Mulholland. Even has its own Facebook page.

    Says it all, really.

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment: