Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also as RNZ has pointed out this morning, some of the allegations of Scarlette were never actually aired by media.
Consequently if NZR's lawyer didn't even interview her until after everyone else, it's hardly possible they could have quizzed other witnesses about all of the allegations. If it were not already obvious, NZR clearly set out for this to be a media damage control exercise, and not a genuine investigation.
As nobody's yet mentioned it here, here's the open letter to the NZ Rugby Management and Board Members: http://www.loverugbyrespectwomen.org.nz/
Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu also had some great things to say this morning about problems with NZ culture around this stuff. -
Field Theory: Not doing enough, in reply to linger,
“Collective responsibility” doesn’t mean they all actively participated – more that nobody in the room spoke out and stopped this.
Yah. It's the refined term for "we'll all band together and protect each other so they can't assume any of us were clearly responsible". But I suppose they're "officially" talking about the collective acceptance they all apparently had for the designated straw man of celebrating with strippers, and not about the activities that allegedly occurred when that was happening.
Many of the comments on this Stuff piece
That's a shame. Stuff really shouldn't be enabling comments on this sort of issue on its own website, unless it's going to be serious about moderation and fact-checking of what people write. If people want to have a pub discussion of unverified hearsay and opinion about sexual assault (allegations etc), they can easily go to the pub, or to facebook, or to any other random place on the internet. Better that than directly underneath a story from a media outlet to which masses of people look for reliable information.
-
This morning, RNZ seems to be reporting "the New Zealand Rugby said those claims were contradicted by independent witnesses not connected to the team".
Is that actually true? All I've noticed reported directly, and in the press conference, is the word "unsubstantiated" or similar. To me there's a significant difference between "unsubstantiated" and "contradicted".
-
Hard News: Obscuring the News, in reply to Stephen Judd,
the NYT now gets more revenue from subscriptions than from advertising. While those subscriptions are still mostly print, this strikes me as yet more evidence that the paywalls are a-coming generally.
I'm not too surprised that the NYT is able to attract such a good subscription base, especially with its national and global appeal. Could we expect the same success from smaller and more localised newspapers?
Something I'd like to see in the internet age, personally, is some kind of consolidated subscription for content which lots of newspapers and other publishers can publish to. Modern media comes from all over the place. I don't really want to have to buy subscriptions to 50 publications, or pay a high price to download single article from each of them, just to cover all the times I stumble across interesting or worthwhile references, but I might happily pay a capped annual subscription for all of them at once.
Are there already any systems out there which let publishers draw from a consolidated subscription according to whether the subscribers read their stuff? (Possibly not too dissimilar to what works in many public transport systems with combined ticketing and multiple operators.)
-
Hard News: Obscuring the News, in reply to Michael Meyers,
I'm not deeply familiar with the Herald but Stuff certainly does this gratuitously, and has for a considerable time, especially through the middle of the day. Geographically anonymous stories irritate me to no end, but I've noticed there's often no shortage of people willing to comment on them., and I guess the attention they can attract is worth gold in their advertising model.
Post a random wire (or Reddit) story about an obscure celebrity nobody's heard of who YouTubes a video of a baby screaming on a US domestic flight, and it'll easily attract 150+ comments of kiwis arguing and screaming with each other about appropriate parenting on an aircraft. Plenty go as far as making specific judgemental statements about people and a situation of no relevance to them whatsoever. And that's not even counting the Facebook comments.
There also seems to be a gradual shift towards dumping local Australian news on us as if it's relevant. I guess it's cheap or free given the ownership model.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to simon g,
Stuff's attitude to that entire story has been driving me up the wall, even without the comment threads.
They've taken a serious and traumatic tragedy for multiple people and are trivialising it as if it's equivalent to some kind of of reality TV game show. (I wrote more on that frustration last night at http://www.windy.gen.nz/index.php/archives/5847 )
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to linger,
Yes, I noticed that. It'd be good to have a second opinion, though. Even if from a lawyer who knows lots about parliamentary process.
-
So... Matt Doocey's "Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill" was drawn from the ballot yesterday. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/proposed-members-bills/document/51HOOOCBallot201608251/members-bills-ballot-for-thursday-25-august-2016
Any thoughts?
To the best of my limited ability when comparing with the Companies Act, it seems to adjust the Companies Act so that when a Board sends an Annual Report to all shareholders, it has to be provided free of charge, clarifies that it can now be provided electronically if the shareholder agrees, and adjusts the ways in which the board is required to inform shareholders that they're entitled to receive those copies.
Is that typically statutes amendment stuff, or is it actually worthy of a Members' Bill?
-
That all means the TPP is functionally dead.
Pardon my cynicism, but I'm sure the TPP has been declared dead by its opponents, and then somehow re-risen, multiple times over the past several years. I'm not going to underestimate the potential for the world of US politics to somehow find a way, and I'll believe this zombie agreement is actually dead when I see it hanged, disembowelled, beheaded, quartered and incinerated beyond recognition.
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to FletcherB,
is simply to reduce the mathematical possibility of non-government members bills from being randomly selected
Gerry Brownlee attempted to immediately progress this Bill to its Third Reading, which Winston Peters blocked for whatever reason.
This might have just been a damage control attempt by Brownlee, given the media coverage, whatever the reason that National stuffed it into the ballot beforehand.
I see Parliament's explanation is that "when a space on the Order Paper becomes available, a ballot is held to decide which members bill(s) will be introduced". Does this happen immediately, or does ballot-stuffing like this still delay any further Bills from being introduced for substantially longer, even if it goes through rapidly?
