Posted by BE on February 17th, 2012
David Shearer shuns Labour Luvvie. I spotted this intriguing headline in this morning’s Herald. What could it mean? Who was ‘Labour luvvie’ and why had David Shearer shunned him or her: I just had to read on:
‘David Shearer needs media help and he’s getting it – but not from former Labour love Brian Edwards.
‘Edwards was paid to media-train Helen Clark and her ministers, and even got the SOS call from Phil Goff during the election after a couple of years in the wilderness.
‘However, he’s been left out in the cold by the dynamic new Labour leader and his chief of staff, Stuart Nash. Sources tell me Sean Plunket was considered for media advice, but Nash told The Diary there will be “no external media training”.’
OMG, imagine my consternation! I was ‘Labour Luvvie’. I am ‘Labour luvvie’. And I have been ‘shunned’ by David Shearer – ‘shunned’ by a man I didn’t even know I was dating. ‘Left out in the cold’ by the ‘dynamic new Labour leader’ and his chief of staff, Stuart Nash.
Can you understand the humiliation? To be ‘left out in the cold’ by someone you spoke to once outside a cafe in Herne Bay, without even the chance to mail a billet doux or plight your troth.
And the ultimate insult – to learn that he’s getting what he needs, but not from you!
Could this all really be true? Of course, it was in the Herald. And the writer was not just some anonymous hack, but tabloid intellectual and rapier wit Rachel Glucina whom I’ve long since forgiven for calling me ‘irrelevant’.
Still, I refuse to give up hope. Someone else is bound to come along yearning for a luvvie. I may not even have long to wait.
If you were his luvvie, Brian…what would you be whispering in his ear?
The NZ Herald has been become yet another tabloid on the cover page and several pages back into Section 1
Mate, I, hopefully, will need a ‘luvvie’ one day when NZOC makes it big! You’ll be my first choice!
Saw that. Thought it was a really dumb bit of writing….
What do you expect if you publicly proclaim that you are not using shampoo for washing your hair?
Socialists do have some standards and are hardly likey to send their beloved leader to be trained by some oik with scurf!
Had a laugh about that comment in the NZH. I suppose because Shearer has finally taken to wearing a decent shirt and tie they think he has had some media training. We will see!
David Shearer is a nice man with no killer instinct as needed to survive in the political jungle.
He won’t even make it to the next election. Cunliffe will get the poison chalice and then it will be game on…doubt he will need a luvvie….a severe enema maybe…but not a luvvie…sorry Brian.
“Luvvie” indeed! Oh dear.A Luvvie scorned is a dangerous thing. With shining hair and a twinkle in his eye or even both his eyes, Mr B.E will laugh longest.
You will have to be the luvvie of an “L” – maybe the Liberals? National Nookie is just too horrible!!
What do you learn in media training? How to make the back-room deals? How to keep a newspaper’s advertisers happy/placated? How to do the deals when court action looms? How to court the media? How to give the media the stories that sell/rate, while pushing your own political agendas forward? How to get the upper-hand OVER the media? How to USE the media, and not get USED? How to threaten court action against the media, and then get the upper hand by making the good deals for yourself, for your well-manicured exposure to the public, to the readers? How to give the media, the stories that will get them more readers, while NOT using you in a way to disadvantage yourself? Or do you learn how to dress?
BE: Well I guess it depends on who you go to for the training. Our mantra has been the same for 28 years: Be straightforward; Tell the truth; Admit your mistakes.
This answer probably won’t fit with your obvious preconceptions about what we do. Sorry.
Surely the major revelation of this piece is that BE reads Rachel Glucina’s gossip column!
An unpleasant duty done only as a matter of professional media research perhaps. Like Patricia Bartlett’s reading of pornography?
I think of the case of Darren Hughes, Labour MP. In Parliament, he always struck me as being very conscientious. No court case, or charges were laid against Darren Hughes. Darren Hughes was tried by the media and crucified. His political career was over. The ‘media-handling’ could have determined a very different and opposite outcome. Someone with an upper-hand over the media, a ‘mutual’ relationship could have ‘produced’ a very different outcome to this story, or made it a ‘no’ story… Darren Hughes innocence, or whether he had been set up was IRRELEVANT at the end of the day. The facts are, no charges were laid, but the media certainly enjoyed the increased ratings. A good media trainer I believe is a ‘Producer’. Stories are massaged/made. Everyone has their own perspective/truth at the end of the day.
We should not have to court the media. I thiught we live in a democracy?
However with TVNZ recently stopping Shearer from appearing on a morning television news show because he “does not make the news” is bollocks. Its merely a state funded broadcaster telling us who, and who we should not listen to. If violation of freedom of speech by stealth.
BE: “We should not have to court the media. I thought we live in a democracy?”
Democracy also involves the freedom of the press/media to pick and choose what they publish. The Broadcasting Act sets down standards for radio and television broadcasters on matters such as balance, taste, accuracy etc. There are no such rules governing the print media, who can really only be sued for defamation.
You don’t have to ‘court the media’ but it would seem sensible to understand how the media operate and to learn the skills of communicating effectively with them.
I was also surprised that Shearer would not be appearing on Breakfast (?) while Key still would. It seemed unfair. However, it transpires that the same rules have applied to previous National Party Opposition leaders. I’m still not sure it’s a good policy. The battle to win public support isn’t confined to election years only.
Sloppy use of language, there.
A “luvvie”, as defined by the OED and most other dictionaries, is an actor or actress.
Yep, Dazza, as in that great Ben Elton/Rik Mayal/Adrian Edmondson pisstake of BBC luvies – ‘Filthy, Rich and Catflap’.
You are safer in the arms of Judy!
I’m a National man from waaaay back, but I like your humour Brian. Nice.
I wonder if Bob Harvey is waiting for the call.
Hes not that busy at the moment.
Might it be that some politicians prefer to keep their engagement of media consultants private. BE seemed open about his work for Helen, perhaps with her blessing.
Does anybody actually read Rachel Glucina? Why?