The view has long been that talking about suicide to young people is risky, that it normalises suicide as a behaviour. There will be further concern that Mike's campaign is so tightly tied to him as a person.
But we've spent a long time not talking about suicide and the rate is not falling.
Exactly - there's no bad guys here, but there's a lot in the old saw that when you do what you've always done, you get what you've always got. That's not good enough any more, and it's no sign of weakness on anyone's part to say "We're not making progress here, it's time to move in another direction."
My prediction on this is that there will be some Republican wailing and gnashing-of-teeth this Republican primary cycle, then the eventual nominee will choose not to make it a big deal in the general election because, you know, 60% like the change
60% who were never going to vote for them any way, according to radical right demonology. I'll be very happy to be proved wrong on this, but there are far too many in the GOP (and let's not forget the Presidency is not the only thing up for grabs next November) who've invested far too much in demonizing LGBT for far too long to stop. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is already trolling to be sued which should help get the base out next November, and his credibility if he eventually decides to move on up the political food chain.
An enema might make us uncomfortable, that doesn’t make it satire.
And while talking cheap shots at easy targets you never have to look in the eye might pass muster as “satire” nowadays, it sure looks a lot like good old-fashioned bullying to me. Or is it OK as long as you don’t happen to like the targets?
Monica Lewinsky has some relevant (and surprisingly funny, all things considered) reflections on that topic…
Anyway, good luck to Brown Eye. One complaint though – last week they had Cameron Slater as a guest. They lost one viewer immediately.
It was awkward.
Well, you know what? If you want "satire" that doesn't make you uncomfortable, you're probably missing the point. And while I hate the whole punching up/down/sideways analogy (which is deeply simplistic on way too many fronts), at least insult Slater while he's in the room. It's more than he does to anyone else.
As Mihingarangi Forbes’s resignation illustrates, the feudal aspects of Maoridom can once again be relied upon to find common self-interest with white privilege.
I’m not sure Forbes would welcome being co-opted into another discussion of white privilege derailed into what’s really wrong with brown people. Again. Which is not to say there aren’t perfectly legitimate questions to be asked about what’s looking like a pretty dysfunctional corner of the media landscape, but this is a really unfortunate context.
No need to feel guilty about something that you didn’t make happen, but do be aware that it helps you in all sorts of unexpected and often invisible ways.
Well... exactly. To be blunt, straight white middle class "guilt" is no bloody use to me or anyone else. Perhaps, just perhaps, not going on air and suggesting black people in Baltimore just need to "calm down" or bending over backwards to explain how unarmed black men bring being shot down on themselves -- and conveniently hand-waving off any acknowledgement of systemic racism whatsoever? Yeah, that's useful. With all due disrespect, Rich, that's not academic wank.
And, yes, please take it all personally and get obsessed with language -- because the way people of colour (and women and LGBT) get talked about and to in the workplace, the media, politics at every level, the courts and police stations? It's personal. It has consequences -- because words mean things, and they form actions. And none of us -- NOBODY -- exists above and beyond that.
I want to see news about how happy we all are
And you know what, Mike, Campbell Live did plenty of warm-fuzzy human interest fluff. Some people might even say too much. But actual honest to dog journalism is about how unhappy people can be. If it had been up to Hosking, would Christchurch still be a media blackout zone?
I’m sure this doesn’t add anything to Lynton Crosby’s (highly profitable) political mystique, but you know what the Tories absolutely did right – a brutally effective focus on the marginals that still matter a lot under FPP. (This is why everyone should be very careful with drawing too many conclusion from the UK – electorally, we not comparing apples with oranges, but cricket balls with hand grenades.) As far as I can tell, the Tories put a lot of thought and effort into a textbook ground game the media didn’t really notice, because they were obsessed with gaming polls instead of policy analysis.
Unfortunately for Labour (and the LibDems), the SNP was also following a game plan that succeeded beyond all expectations – and it was also based on a handful of clearly and consistently articulated messages that read the mood of the Scottish electorate. I'm still not sure what the hell the British Labour Party stood for beyond "the Tories suck" and "Ed is shag-able".
It’s still a version of “don’t risk it”, though.
Sure - and if you want to frame it as "negative campaigning" then that fair enough too, but it also strikes me as a perfectly legitimate campaign to run even if you don't like the people putting it forward. Of course, the antidote to "don't put it all at risk" is "well, how is 'it' working for you, really? Consider this instead." Least we forget, Labour won in 1999 in no small part because a tired and unpopular Government tried running a scare campaign in uncertain times about Labour's tax-and-spend secret agenda. The problem was there was nothing even slightly mysterious about the policies Labour had been presenting consistently for the best part of a year from Clark and Cullen all the way down.
In both countries, that perception was fostered with carefully-constructed negative campaigns, from the same strategists, aimed at making a change of government look risky, and emphasising what there was to be lost.
And which Labour did pretty effectively in 2002 and 2005 -- there were plenty of people, at least in my circle, who were looking at Labour's message of "you may not like everything we've done, but look at those clowns over there. LOOK HARD and ask if you really want to run away to join that circus" and agreed. (And they took a lot of leaves out of the British Labour playbook, and I've long said the Tories were Tony Blair's most reliable allies.)