Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Would anyone distribute/put out a song called "Killing an Arab" these days? (presumably spun from Camus' Outsider?) Not surprised they didn't play it (did they?) It would quickly become notorious!
-
Richard, with respect, if you think
In the end, the differences between the two professions are not that huge
you should take a look at Adam Curtis' "Century of the Self"- or just read up on Edward Bernays. The undeniable convergence of the two professions is unnerving.
I'm with Keith on the value of first-person eyewitness reporting. There's a lot wrong with the "it's all opinion anyway" line. Sometimes it's horribly self-serving, sometimes it's intellectually lazy, sometimes it's just too darn clever.
I'd say more but I'm married to a (former) PR person. ;) -
If you look at the money connection, it's quickly apparent why journalists are ahem, uneasy about blogging. Journalism is seen as a (semi?) glamorous profession- fuelled by the celeb culture, where getting in print or your name in the paper etc is status enhancing. Many young people are pushing to get a start as journalists, which pushes pay rates down (as well as constantly diluting the talent/experience base). The free lance rates are a joke, and have been for a long time. The salaries aren't that good either.
Then you get these bloggers, with the temerity to offer opinions and even, on occasion, pull to pieces bad - or any- journalism. and what's worse: they do it for nothing!
There's a lot of fear in the way journalists view blogging- and journalists who actually blog, are sometimes considered quislings.
What the fear masks is the way quality tends to help success online too. And there are some great examples of online "bloggingjournalism". PA is one: Scoop, TMPmedia and Young's blog are other examples.
What's less clear is how such "journalism" blogs will produce revenue, how much they will need to produce, and whether they are financially sustainable. But it's been interesting watching TalkingPointsMemo take off (and PAS, of course!). A few years ago TPM was just Josh Marshall. He started advertising internships, then for staff positions- now it looks like a mini-empire in the making, with a "TPMtv" and various branches, editors- something not unlike a traditional media outlet.
Nobody knows where this is heading, and fear breeds uncertainty. But odds on some of the journalists currently talking scathingly about the "new media" will end up starting or working for online ventures. -
One of the cool things about art is that noone has ever defined it satisfactorily. (Dickie had a good go.) You can't draw a ring around it because it won't sit still and it doesn't come in standard packaging.
Luckily there are enough non-controversial cases we all "get the idea". But a problem with this is that many- if not most- arguments about "what is art" come down to de facto arguments about quality: <sneer> that's not art </sneer>.
Which turns a lack of clarity into a clash of taste. -
If you took from the world all the art that had been done for money, or food or sex or kudos or to have the thrill of enthralling others, or something other than purely its own sake... how much would be left? An enterprise can be worthwhile and an end unto itself and still earn a buck...
-
BTW, apropos of nothing Ingmar Bergman is now depressing the Almighty
God shld be so lucky. We don't get artists that good very often.
-
Please no mac v pc war.
maybe a survey? "Do you use a Mac or PC ?"
And "If price were no object, would you use a Mac or PC?" -
Agreed on point 2. Didn't consider that at all. Not sure about 3 and 4.
But 1 is the sticking point, really. Not because we're wedded to the family home- you only pay the tax on the difference in value, IF you sell. What we're wedded to is changing houses and the notion that the family home is both inflation-proof, and making us money. (And if you're on a 100% mortgage at 10% interest, it blimmin better be!) Yet that's the very thing which the mad upwards ever-upwards Icarus-flight of house prices threatens: there'll be a end at some stage, and it'll be painful.
Look, even the limited proposals Cullen spoke of having discussed with Key were nixed by English (followed up by Clarke). It's a clear case where the best interests of the NZ economy overall are ignored in a game of political chicken. I think less of both English and Clarke as a result. I'm already part of the Cullen cult ;-) And I'm starting to think Key without English would be a safer pair of hands than the current, rather awkward situation. (If you've seen the first episode of Flight of the Conchords: think of Sally as the National Party. She's going out with Jermaine now- but Brett's always in the same room....) -
Totally agree Kyle. I still can't understand why money I earn by working is taxed while money earnt by not working is tax-free. I don't understand how it doesn't simply privelege speculators.
(And I'm not totally convinced the "family home" should be exempt. It's still "unearned" money (though "improvements" need to be considered) and it *should* even out somewhat in that the cost of the tax to vendors is mirrored in lowerprices for buyers.) -
Stephen- a wide range of comments here, and commentators in the media agree on this. If only that meant it'd happen!
But it's off the political agenda, largely 'cos Bill English won't have a bar of it- though Clarke seems to have stepped up to write it off as well.
They may see it as political poison, butsince there are few if any other plausible avenues, it seems fair that English- and Clarke- wear this.
There ought to be exporters calling for their heads.