Step 2. Make up some sort of controversy to sex it up - alleged approaches from "Labour people" to ask the Greens not to run a candidate against them.
Step 3. Dedicate a third of the article to what someone who is completely uninvolved and uninformed about the made-up controversy - Rodney Hide - thinks about the made-up controversy.
Step 4. Collect undeserved paycheck.
Quite why the Green Party running a candidate in the Mt Albert byelection is news is never adequately explained. The approaches to the Greens consisted of "'informal discussion round the traps' between Labour and the Greens about potential vote-splitting". Here is an informal discussion about vote-splitting:
Phil Goff: Hey, we're both centre-left parties. I hope there's no vote-splitting in this byelection.And as for Rodney 'The Values Party' Hide, I have no idea how he weaseled his way into the story to deliver the fascinating news that Act would also stand a candidate. But he did manage to give his views on the controversial approaches that almost certainly didn't happen:
Russel Norman: Yeah, same.
Well it's lucky that Rodney's job (and party) don't rely on National, shall we say, taking it easy in Epsom at the election. Because that would make him a hypocrite.
If Labour had tried to encourage the Greens not to stand or to get their candidate to encourage voters to support Labour's candidate it showed they were concerned about losing the seat [said Hide].
"It's a bit poor of Labour to be running so scared that they're trying to restrict the democratic options of Mt Albert."