Monday, August 18, 2014

RNZ: What I should have said

How frustrating. Rung last night by Radio NZ looking for a recorded interview about the Green's child poverty policy, I covered  points made in my earlier post today. But the one line the reporter chose to use was my support for lowering the child age to qualify for early childhood education from 3 to 2 because that enables mothers to move off benefits and into work sooner.

What I should have added is that it's  largely a redundant proposal given extending the In Work Tax Credit to beneficiaries won't see single mothers rushing into the work force.


Anonymous said...

What you could have said is the simple "headline"

Welfare harms those it claims to help;
the only moral welfare policy is to remove as much welfare as possible as quickly as possible.

bUt best of all: follow Whale's example: have nothing whatsoever to do with RadioNZ, you can be sure they'll twist everything you say to make it account for the communist worldview - just as they have done in this case.

Getting a National+ACT government elected that will finally shut down RadioNZ grows more urgent every passing day

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I did. I said higher benefits would lead to more children on welfare long-term and that is indisputably bad for them. At least my comment was prefaced as by being from someone who has campaigned against benefit dependence.

Jim Peters said...

Another case of cherry-picking the elements that suits the narrative they want the audience to hear. I listened to that segment and wondered what you had actually been asked.

With the advances of technology, one day all they need is a sample of your voice. Software will broadcast your opinion on anything they want. I don't think ethics will enter into it.

It appears they did not in this instance.