Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Please, be our guests | Nov 20, 2009 11:32

We've told you it's happening, some of you have already bought the books, but here it is – the omnibus round-up of Public Address Books launch detail. If you would like to help David Haywood celebrate the launch of The New Zealand Reserve Bank Annual 2010 and Emma Hart celebrate her debut, Not Safe for Work, this is your blog post.

It begins in the capital, where Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson has very kindly agreed to host us at Parliament's Grand Hall on Friday Nov 27, and, with the approval of the Speaker, this lovely room comes at no charge. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the locked-in catering. We did seek a corkage deal (our only sponsorship support is liquid, courtesy of Monteith's and Matawhero wines), but the quoted $16 per head for corkage alone was far beyond our means. I may yet be able to arrange something, but there will be water available at the least.

So in Wellington, you are very welcome indeed to meet us at the backbencher from 5pm if you would like a drink before the 6pm launch. After the Parliamentary part of the evening, we were adjourn to the Thistle Inn, where our sponsors' products will greatly aid the launch of Emma's book (officially, David's book will be launched at Parliament and Emma's at the Thistle, but there will naturally be some crossover).

It will be a thoroughly excellent evening, we'd love to see you all (well, perhaps not all of you …). But especially for the Parliamentary part of the evening, we'll want you to RSVP to these official invitations:

Official invitation to the launch of David Haywood's New Zealand Reserve Bank Annual 2010 at the Grand Hall of Parliament, Wellington.

Official invitation to the launch of Emma Hart's Not Safe for Work at the Thistle Inn, Wellington.

Things are much simpler in Auckland, for we are simpler, more commercially-minded folk. There is but one launch, and it is at the Velvet Room, Sale Street bar, on Wednesday December 2. You can RSVP for via the address on this invitation:

Official invitation to the Auckland launch of David Haywood's New Zealand Reserve Bank Annual 2010 and Emma Hart's Not Safe for Work, at the Velvet Room.

The Christchurch launch is pending confirmation. Thanks to Joanna McLeod for getting the party started right in Wellington, to Grant Robertson and Jen Toogood, the folks at Pead PR, Luke and the team at Sale Street – and of course to Monteith's and Matawhereo for the liquid support.

It'll rock.

But wait! There's more! In keeping with the rule that in the future all copyright creators will make a living off t-shirts sales, we're, er, giving away a t-shirt. Well, David is anyway. It's this one (supplied in a size of your choice):

But there's a test of knowledge between you and that awesome shirt. You must answer the question "According to the New Zealand Reserve Bank Annual 2010, what is Alan Bollard's preferred beverage?" Hit Reply and email me with the answer in the subject line. [sorry, gone now]

PS: It has been noted that the cover of Emma's book may actually be deemed not safe for work in some offices. So here are the actual rsvp addresses:

rsvp.auckland@publicaddressbooks.com
rsvp.wellington@publicaddressbooks.com
rsvp.thistle@publicaddressbooks.com

---

For now: Phoenix Foundation have a free track for you, 'Everybody's Money', from their forthcoming Christmas EP, Merry Kriskmass. How jolly nice of them. If you happen to see a member of the Phoenix Foundation in the street, be sure to offer your thanks. Otherwise, just thank the next bearded man you meet. The karmic effect will be essentially the same.

And here's last night's Media7, from the SPADA conference in Wellington, featuring interviews and discussions with Broadcasting minister Jonathan Coleman, John Barnett, Nick Murray, Jane Wrightson, Tainui Stephens and Paora Maxwell, but reports on the exhibition of Prime Ministerial portraiture at Shed 11 and new Flip micro HD camera.

(58 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Truth to Power, etc | Nov 17, 2009 11:14

You may have seen Cactus Kate's self-proclaimed "humdinger of a story" claiming that APN has issued new "guidelines from Sydney" to its editors, which are "all to do with NO budget allocated for legal action or defence so the editors have basically been told not to run stories that could cause legal action or are risky in other ways."

It's poorly written and cluttered with so much chest-beating that it's difficult to tell how much genuine cause for concern there might be in its contents. Much of what she quotes – including training-wheels advice on not breaching suppression orders – seems unexceptional, and prudent.

But if there is a new policy requiring a more cautious approach to reporting purely to save money on legal advice and representation, then that's news. One of the virtues of corporate media ownership ought to be that it provides the resources to resist legal bullying.

New Zealand Herald editor Tim Murphy says there is nothing of the kind, in both this public statement on the Herald website, and this somewhat snarkier email sent yesterday to APN staff and contributors:

You may have seen or been told about a blog post today by Cactus Kate claiming that APN has instructed editors/papers to a) spend nothing on editorial legal advice and b) go soft when dealing with controversial stories.

I'm as puzzled about it as you are. It is not true on either score.

There is no directive to editors. Nothing has been communicated to me or the other APN editors here on that topic. Our NZH editorial legal budget for 2010 is not cut and not restricted.

Some points in the blog posting are a heavily truncated mish-mash of unremarkable legal discussion points in a 66-page media law training paper put together by our lawyers, Bell Gully and provided to 80 or so participants from throughout APN.

They are not publisher instructions or editor directives; they are not new (the same general thoughts have been included in the training document for years) and in the context of training staff, and shorn of the blogger's particular interpretation, the basic points are entirely matter-of-fact for anyone seeking to get things right and avoid legal pitfalls the media have encountered before.

So, no change. No orders from on-high. No end to investigations or to keeping newsmakers honest or to speaking truth to power. Just a mis-representation of a standard training paper from experienced defamation lawyers.

The blogosphere rides again.

Tim Murphy

Editor

The phrase "Our NZH editorial legal budget for 2010 is not cut and not restricted," in particular, seems unequivocal.

Kate (aka former Fairfax columnist Cathy Odgers) has responded to Murphy, declaring that the document she has is not the Bell Gully document:

I have received various copies of the email circulated to APN staff and contributors in different forms, one specifically headed "Suggested guidelines to limit defamation proceedings". I did not receive any emails from the direct recipients of the emails and have been forwarded the emails well down the chain of cc. Some of Mr Murphy's colleagues are copied on those emails who for obvious reasons I will not name. In one is a direct reference at the beginning of the email forwarded to the document attached "Pre-publication vetting.doc" originating from Sydney HQ. Call it what you want but when a Head Office circulates emails down a chain I call that instructions or directives. It did not come directly from Bell Gully in other words.

She does allow that "That [Murphy] calls it a 'mis-mash' says to me that a lawyer possibly has not written the document and it has been compiled for distribution by HR or junior staff at APN."

It certainly seems possible that longstanding training advice (and, frankly, that is how most of the material quoted reads) could have been compiled or condensed in this way. But it would be odd if Murphy was genuinely unaware of it.

If anyone wants to send me the document in question, I'd be happy to look at it, but for now I can't really tell what's going on there. I do feel bound to say that Odgers has had more luck than most of us get in inducing Murphy to publicly front for his paper. It seems that the trick to getting a response from Murphy is to use the most inflammatory language.

---

I talked on Nine to Noon this morning about the part of the Law Commission report, Suppressing Names and Evidence, that relates to the internet. And, specifically, this formal recommendation:

Where an internet service provider or content host becomes aware that they are carrying or hosting information that they know is in breach of a suppression order, it should be an offence for them to fail to remove the information or to fail to block access to it as soon as reasonably practicable.

It's curiously vague and potentially alarming. IANAL, but "becomes aware" seems a rather loose requirement for action (elsewhere in the relevant section a more formal notice-and-takedown process is suggested).

And what exactly does the Commission mean by "block access"? Given that material in breach of a suppression order is quite likely to be hosted outside New Zealand, is the Commission saying that ISPs should actively filter the internet to prevent New Zealanders reading material that breaches suppression?

One of the most prominent cases of its kind is that of Peter Lewis, the so-called "dope-smuggling billionaire" whose local name suppression was eventually overturned after action by the Herald and others. But almost all the material that named Lewis legitimately appeared in foreign newspapers, which were not subject to the order. Are we really to ask ISPs to block newspapers?

Almost certainly not, said Canterbury University's Ursula Cheer, who also appeared on the programme. I hope she's right. But if she is, I think the Commission really needs to raise the standard of its language, given that Internet NZ has read the report in much the same way I have, and is duly alarmed.

As a general point, I think targeting ISPs is the wrong way to go. Requiring ISPs to take a crucial interest in content on their networks is unappealing here for much the same reason as it is in cases of copyright claims. We just want them to deliver the bits; they have nether the competence or the motivation to deal with such claims properly.

It's publishers who are responsible for their content, and it's hardly a mystery who they are. Most breaches (including that of the name suppression for the "prominent entertainer", about which the Herald continues to have hissy fits) take place in public discussion forums – and one forum in particular.

Before it goes for ISPs, the law would be better served in requiring Trade Me to exercise proper moderation of its forums, which has been a source of breaches for years. Cost can hardly be an issue – and it is, for goodness sake, owned by a media company.

(188 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Deprived of speech, he sang without words | Nov 16, 2009 10:38

I still have the June 11 texts on my phone. The first was blunt and alarming: "Chris Knox has had a stroke," and then later, " … prognosis not good". What has happened since has been a story of trauma and love and friendship and, now, a remarkable recording project.

Amid the tremendous rallying of friends that followed Chris's stroke there quickly arose the idea of a tribute album of his songs, to the benefit of Chris and his family. What emerged is to the benefit of us all. Stroke, the album, is profoundly illuminating.

My friends and I knew Chris long before he knew us. He was the iconic, outrageous singer in Toy Love, and we were just old enough to sneak in and see them play three times in the brief spell in which they existed (was it really only 18 months?). Eventually, word went around school that Toy Love had broken up and Chris Knox and his girlfriend were in Auckland with a baby. It felt like something had ended.

In reality, something was beginning. Chris and Alec Bathgate formed the Tall Dwarfs as the opposite of all that had gone before; recording at home on a TEAC four-track. At a time when it was a good deal stranger thing to do than it is now, Chris invested in and shared technology for content creation. That TEAC four-track, which captured the Clean, the Verlaines, the Chills, Sneaky Feelings and the Stones, eventually gave way to (somewhat) more sophisticated recording systems, but it has as great a claim on the culture as Denis Glover's press did in an earlier era.

If for nothing else, for The Clean's Boodle Boodle Boodle. It's getting on for 30 years since those five songs were recorded in a hired hall on Bond Street, and they sound no less good now than they did then. Bands have to sound great to make great-sounding records in those circumstances, and Chris would tell you that it was Doug Hood's soundman's ear that captured it, but still. Still.

Since I actually met him, I've always known Chris in the context of his family; first at the house in Summer Street, which was his and Barbara and Leisha's family home (John didn't turn up until later). Doug Hood lived there too. They had a lot of visitors, and I cringe now at the feeling that we sometimes took it for granted.

Chris was wise and friendly -- and sometimes puritanical and infuriating. Once, I brought Jordan Luck around to the Summer Street house after a gig: Jordan was friendly as a Labrador, Chris was rude, and I was embarrassed.

But that was a long time ago. In 2009, not long after the stroke, Jordan and Bryan Bell landed back in town from a tour, determined that they must immediately see Chris. They called Barbara for directions to Rehab Plus, set out and then … disappeared. Eventually, some time later, Barbara got a call from Jordan. They were lost.

"Describe where you are," she said.

Trees, path, very high fences …

"You're at the Mason Clinic," she deduced. Oh.

Bryan and Jordan have since collaborated on a track for Stroke that demonstrates that not only do the versions on the record reveal another side to Chris's compositions, they sometimes discover another side to the performers themselves. On 'Becoming Something Other', Chris's song about visiting his father on his deathbed, Jordan sings these stark, autobiographical lines over Bryan's arrangement:

And the cat scan showed his brain was losing mass
And he didn't know each morning where he was
Or how he clung to this impasse

It's brilliant and affecting, and I don't think I've heard Jordan do anything like it before.

There's much more: Will Oldham's aching version of 'My Only Friend', The Checks gambolling through 'Rebel', Peter Gutteridge's Dunedin gothic reading of the Enemy's 'Don't Catch Fire', 'David Kilgour's instrumental re-reading of 'Nothing's Gonna Happen', Jay and Sam Clarkson's family hoedown on 'I've Left Memories Behind', Shayne Carter on 'The Slide', Graeme Downes' lovely string arrangement for the Verlaines' version of 'Driftwood', Boh Runga unexpectedly finding her inner-Lucinda-Williams in the middle of 'Not Given Lightly', the gravitas of Bill Callahan on 'Lapse' ... and it seems so obvious now that 'Bodies' was always a banjo tune.

Already, you should go here and buy it.

---

Another story: In 1984, a friend and I were returning from an early show at the Windsor, gloriously tripping off our proverbial nanas, in my Morris 1800, but driven, sensibly, by a sober person, with Chris, equally sober, catching a lift home to Grey Lynn. It was absolutely hosing with rain.

We were heading up College Hill, when Chris suddenly declared we had to stop opposite the flats where Murray Cammick, Steve Roach and others lived. He leapt out and ran across the road to the flats in the torrential rain. We waited and continued to listen to bFM. Eventually, a song finished and the host came on.

"This is a message for those people on College Hill … sitting in a bubble in the rain. Yes, you …"

There followed various other personalised freaking-you-right-out-because-the-radio-is-talking-to-you murmurings.

And then Chris arrived back, grinning. That was a good stunt.

---

In the piece I wrote for the NZ On Screen collection of Chris's video work curated by Roger Shepherd, I proposed that a keynote of Chris work is his "ability to marry virtuosity and naivety - with honesty, always, as the glue".

That honesty is why Chris means more to me than I have felt comfortable telling him in person. For a long time, and in some ways still, he was the person of one of my internal critics: What would Chris think of this? I would wonder. (And also Ha! Chris would HATE this!). I suspect I am not alone in this. Which is not to say that he has always been right, or that his advice has always been welcomed by those who receive it. But he has standards.

I've been writing this in my head since the night I heard that Chris had suffered a traumatic stroke -- but the ending was different then. It was such a relief to go into that ward and see Chris: looking like he'd had a 10-ton weight from a vintage Warner cartoon dropped on him, but still measurably, demonstrably and provably Chris. There was the Chris Knox Rueful Smile and the Chris Knox Withering Look.

It was a severe stroke, and much of its impact will be permanent. Chris is walking again, with leg braces, but it will be a while, if ever, before his strumming arm works well again. But he's drawing with his left hand and, remarkably, although he still can't speak much beyond "yeah" and "no", he has recorded two new songs for his own tribute album: 'Napping in Lapland' as The Nothing and 'Sunday Song' by Tall Dwarfs.

Chris's memory and cognition were bruised by the stroke, and the part of his brain that governs speech was badly damaged -- but music stayed with him. I'm told that when he was wheeled in to hospital on that day in June, he was humming a tune. Now, he and Roy Martyn are plotting full-length future recordings.

So know this about Chris Knox: deprived of speech, he sang without words.

---

Now, go, click here and buy Stroke as either a double CD or MP3s from Amplifier. Let's get it in the charts.

Consider a babysitter for the launch party at The King's Arms on Friday night.

Visit the new Chris Knox website.

And luxuriate in low-tech video goodness at NZ On Screen.

(91 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!