there are very strong incentives to get up a story as fast as possible... and then update it continuously. Once readers know a story will likely develop over the day they'll keep refreshing.
Really? The only story I'll refresh on is the kind that specifically says "live updates". If I read something in the morning that was shittily written, or with a misleading clickbaity headline, I'm not going to bother with it again later in the day. Unless it was a compelling breaking story, and there's a big banner saying "updated". Which is far from the majority of stories.
I have to agree that if I'm going to pay for something - yes, Guardian NZ, thank you - I do expect a professional level of writing and subediting. The technology avvailable now in the publishing sector - no idea what the Herald uses - makes it very easy and quick to have an article flow from one unit to another prior to publication. But you still need the "content creators" there to create quality output.
Organs like the Herald have more that exceeded the benefits that technology brings to the publication workflow by losing too many skilled staff who actually know words and grammar. There is no commercial technology that can do a good grammar check in English yet. You simply need humans - and enough of them - to do certain kinds of writing and editing tasks.
Finally, since a large chunk of the Herald is simply regurgitating the generic Fairfax content, and the majority of their op ed writers are shite, yup, I wouldn't fork out cash for the modicum of local news they publish.
rein in its paywall plans*
(Sorry for the grammar nitpick – the idiom relates to runaway horses, not Her Maj)
I think our entire New Zealand establishment is pretty much rotten to the core and no longer fit for purpose in a modern state.
My alter ego is a socialist anarchist, so do away with "the state", and I'll be right with you. In reality, I'm a bit Churchillian about the idea of democracy.
As to how rotten the NZ political establishment is, I'm afraid living in Australia has rather jaundiced me. Now, their system and most of their pols are rotten. The NZ circus is rather smaller potatoes (although definitely in the process if joining the same train).
I loathe Key, but I think this buffoon anywhere near political power will be worse. In a different way, of course.
It amazes me how people who rightly point out that running a company isn't like running the nation seem to be giving this circus any credence. I was hoping that Laila would keep her hands firmly on the reins, but if the clown with the chequebook keeps trying to hog centre ring with his fan dances (thanks, Craig), the party's attempts at gaining any political credibility will fail.
So they can get to relay any juicy details and innuendo, with a healthy side dish of "we told you so, already"?
I can sure as hell guarantee there will be no mea culpa statements if the innuendo in this piece is unfounded.
I've got the White Album on original vinyl. I know it's heresy to the vinyl fans, but most of the tracks sound much better to me on the recentish remastered offerings.
I don't see the equivalence here. If you're a sole leaseholder in a shared house, you're not "receiving rents" for the asset you own. You're merely the channel for money that actually does end up in rents to the property owner.
If anyone who actually is a property owner uses that as a justification for avoiding tax on their rented property, I hope IRD jumps all over them when they get audited.
As for the original suggestion, I totally agree there should be a compulsory registration scheme before you can rent out a property. Especially, as George observes, there are likely to be areas where compliancy to certain standards are enforced.
Of course, there will be much wailing and bitching from those who will insist naughty landlords will avoid registration, that the "good guys" will be penalised, and that there will be extra costs in creating such a scheme. Frankly, I think the cost of not doing it, and the ad hocery of what we do now, is much higher.
And it is still often the case today that men's assault services are run as off-shoots of women's refuge services, at least intentionally (don't know what the current state of affairs is in NZ) and are are even less-resourced than the refuges themselves.
I think some context as to why men have been poorly-served that sense might be of interest. Women fought long and hard to set up the original refuges - they didn't get any handouts to do so. Their focus was getting women and kids out of unsafe situations and into homes where the abusers couldn't follow them. But unfortunately, yes, that focus on getting away from the (mostly male) abusers meant of course that male victims were not welcome in the "safe space".
I don't think anyone who works in the sector would deny the fact that men are victimised and women can be abusers. But their remit was originally and still primarily is for women and children's safety. If the Refuge movement were specifically to extend their focus on providing DV victim support to everyone, I would very happily support this and contribute to their coffers as I do now.
But I also think that blaming Refuge for not catering for male victims (and I heard it more than once) is a bit unfair. It came out of a grassroots feminist effort to take care of each other, mostly by women who'd been abused themselves. There has been nothing to stop motivated men from doing the same themselves (like fundraising for prostate cancer getting same awareness as breast cancer). I've actually been surprised that the queer community hasn't stepped up there, although of course that doesn't help straight men.
But again, I think it'd be useful to have some overarching support organisation. With govt kicking in more than they do now.
Sorry about a little bit of the language, guys. I was having a shitty day, and the helmet discussion IS a red herring.
I was relaying some of the general gist of what people say to me about "cycling extremists"- definitely not attempting to characterise anyone here as one of those rude cyclists that gets everyone's backs up. There is a difference between those and all the other considerate and safe cyclists who happen to get around fast and also wear practical lycra.
As for the fact that rude guys who blast around thru red lights (I jump lights myself sometimes - slowly and carefully) and at close proximity to pedestrians wear helmets, of course they do. But they are firmly associated in an lot of the public's mind with the "we don't need no rules or helmets" brigade.
Again, apologies for not making that all much clearer. Definitely not going out on the attack.
Love that take - so to speak - on how "the economy" is often such a bullshit term.
(On another note, can bloggers please consider how medium-grey text looks on off-white backgrounds, particularly with a fine sans-serif typeface? Very difficult to read, esp on small screens. Dark grey is more aesthetically pleasing than stark black, but it still needs to be dark enough to read.
PAS gets the balance pretty right for texty-text. The lighter grey for other text elements is just on the right side of readability for me.