a gradual devolution of power towards polling the public on questions of morality and conscience, and towards experts on questions of fact
I’d like that to be right – but, have you got a mechanism for that to come about? ’Cos questions of fact don’t exactly seem a strong priority for most of our politicians, nor for most of our media, as they’re currently configured.
Education has to be a large part of the (long-term, gradual) solution here – but even that is being increasingly deregulated and fragmented to a point where its potential for societal change is limited. Compare the discussion on the other thread dealing with religious instruction vs. more general ethics/ morality instruction.
As things stand ... on the one hand, we can’t take it for granted that minority rights will be upheld in a general referendum (which surely suggests a limit to how far any such devolution is possible?); and on the other, we have a government that shops round for the expert advice most commensurate with their own biases.
Again, stating such a list implies equivalence. Such an implication needs to be backed up with specific examples of what you’re claiming each of these people has done regarding “manipulation of the political process”.
Please note that, for example,
choosing the timing of a message
is NOT in any way morally equivalent to
altering/fabricating the content of a message
nor, in turn, is that morally equivalent to
using a message to persecute individuals for political or financial gain.
Not to mention that voting started today.
Anyone who wants to can cast an advance vote. Locations and opening hours of advance polling stations are available on the elections.org website electorate map; zoom in to your electorate and check the box to show the relevant icons.
(Since I’m going back to Japan next week, I have already cast mine.)
Media regulator I mentioned
By "who should judge", I meant, who should be on the regulatory body, and how should they be appointed, to ensure an independent judgement not subject to political or industry influence.
To disambiguate: though Craig has in the past gone to some extremes in supporting National's actions, he is on record as having voted Green last time.
And what could be cleaner than that?
if someone is behaving like a journalist (researching, writing, checking, declaring interests, being even minimally accountable and ethical) then they qualify.
Agreed, but who should make the decisions on whether someone's behaviour is consistent with journalism? And is the decision to be made on the basis of the writer's entire body of output (applying the "innocent until proven guilty" principle to new writers), or is each piece of writing to be judged on a case-by-case basis?
Island of Dr Moreau
something the Greens wouldn't have a bar of
(mmm, chocolate meaty goodness)
Ritualized invocations are exactly how Parliament operates
I'd be quite happy if there were a daily reminder along the lines of:
We are gathered here today to serve the New Zealand public, to represent the voices of all. Let us ensure that no group is disadvantaged by our actions and decisions.
Mostly he has just quoted selected parts of conversations with insinuations
What exactly are you insinuating?
What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from <str>Bennett</str>Collins, but the evidence didn’t positively support it, and so he dropped it from the main text, but left the supposition – marked as a supposition, not as a factual claim – in a footnote.
This all sounds absolutely in keeping with standards of academic writing.
But can somebody with the actual book confirm the actual wording?
ETA: Collins. (Ta nzlemming.)