Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Since his election as co-leader over the weekend, and for long before it, Shaw has been similarly characterised by the commentariat as “modern and moderate” (as though the Greens had, until his emergence, been somehow obsolescent and intractable). [--snip--] But the weekend’s result suggests their membership might be starting to believe it themselves, and that’s pretty bad information upon which to start making critical decisions.
In that case, I guess the Green Party might need to disprove whatever characterisations are out there through stuff that it actually does instead of what others say it does, and perhaps James Shaw will be more effective at cutting through the FUD from the other sides than Russel Norman tended to be. On the off chance that it's genuinely shifting its from its current voter base towards new and radically different policies under the new co-leadership, I'm sure those voters will find someone else to elect instead. Problem solved.
-
Hard News: Meet me at Camera 2: White, in reply to Russell Brown,
And yet the comment thread underneath it is still depressingly full of people who aren't getting it. :(
-
By refusing to put their own judgements as human beings into a story, they create a narrative vacuum, and then they fill that vacuum with people like Jordan Williams. There’s an entire industry of people like him who set themselves up to fill that vacuum, so they can control the narrative for their own private gain, or for the private gain of the people they serve.
Heh. Today I read this (quoted below) and it reminded me of the above passage:
The Bild story quotes the study’s lead author, Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D., research director of the Institute of Diet and Health: “The best part is you can buy chocolate everywhere.”
I am Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D. Well, actually my name is John, and I’m a journalist. I do have a Ph.D., but it’s in the molecular biology of bacteria, not humans. The Institute of Diet and Health? That’s nothing more than a website.
Other than those fibs, the study was 100 percent authentic. My colleagues and I recruited actual human subjects in Germany. We ran an actual clinical trial, with subjects randomly assigned to different diet regimes. And the statistically significant benefits of chocolate that we reported are based on the actual data. It was, in fact, a fairly typical study for the field of diet research. Which is to say: It was terrible science.
I haven't checked to make sure that io9 is a reputable publication, but it has a website and stuff.
-
Hard News: Campbell Live: A Disturbance…, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
Hi Geoff.
There are numerous other problems eg the assumption that everyone has autonomy in viewing choices, statistical invalidity in respect of age groupings, under-representation of non-home owning viewers and ethnic groups. But the greatest flaw is that they equate quantitative measurement with qualitative assessment
How is the multiple for these 600 sites chosen? Would we still be getting viewership estimations of 300k to 500k even if there were demonstrably still only 1000 homes left in NZ which actually had a television?
-
Hard News: Campbell Live: A Disturbance…, in reply to simon g,
There were a few of his topics where I felt fatigued, but I didn't hold him responsible so much as the subjects of his reporting who were clearly aiming to wait things out until people got "fatigued". I imagine it's easier to ignore a journo when it's so simple to get whatever unchallenged statements you like out there through other means.
-
Hard News: Campbell Live: A Disturbance…, in reply to Michael Meyers,
It’s now more than 25 years since they started broadcasting and the ratings for their evening news show are still much lower than for TV1, even though I consider 3 News to be a much better product. I expect there are many people out there who have always watched TV1 and always will.
Surely if anyone at TVNZ could spot a good thing, they’d be at least considering being the hero and poaching him, get him to bring as much talent with him as they can, give him some flexibility and then try to stomp all over TV3 with TV1’s pre-existing viewership, maybe chiming in at 6.30 if not 7. Or at least see how it goes for a time.
I’m struggling to see it actually happening, though.
-
It sometimes seems that Labour’s foul destiny is to eternally operate as a blank sheet for everyone else to project onto. They should move to the centre! They should return to their left-wing roots! Be inclusive! Renounce identity politics! Dump the leader! Keep the leader! Be more cynical! Be more principled! Panic! Not panic!
I guess this is because so many people see Labour as the most likely vehicle, or obstacle, around getting rid of the government, for whichever reason they want to get rid of the government, even if they're not even members.
What does the Labour Party want for itself? Is it aiming to get rid of a National government? Is it aiming to represent a specific group of people? Is it aiming to see certain policy implemented? Does it just want power? Would Labour be willing to sacrifice popularity in exchange for its principles yet possibly still form part of a future government? Does Labour even know what it wants, or is it too infested with opportunists driving it?
-
Hard News: Mediaworks: The only horizon…, in reply to Simon Sjorn,
This binary should be irrelavant.Campbell is on the left blah blah. Why can’t you just critisise, hold govt. to account for telling lies, bullying, acting immorally just cos thats a shit way to act? Whether you normally vote Act, Greens, Labour etc….should be irrelavant
I agree. It should also be irrelevant as to whether this is "the way it's always worked so who cares", which (even if actually right) is the standard apologist line I've heard over and over again. If we don't expect high standards then it's hardly a wonder we don't get them.
-
Hard News: 2015: The Budget of what?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I think there is a plan for a more sophisticated system where companies will report payroll to IRD in realtime and be issued adjustments. (There is also a privacy issue where you might not want one employer to know about your side job and how much they pay you).
This could also be good, but is it possible to do and still keep someone's income reasonably consistent for each paycheck if likely total income for the tax year isn't known in advance?
For example, for someone who's bad at budgeting, it could be confusing if a short spontaneous salaried employment term at the end of a tax year results in less cash-in-hand than when they did exactly the same thing at the start of tax year before hitting a higher tax bracket. Or is there some way to handle this?
-
Hard News: Mediaworks: The only horizon…, in reply to Kiwiiano,
I’ve tended to watch TV1 news more than TV3 news, but in honesty that’s probably because I have a better stomach for digesting the final minutes of Millionaire Hot Seat than things like Home & Away, Survivor and Biggest Loser that TV3 serves up as a lead-in.
I guess I rate TV3’s news more highly than TV1, but both channels seem to serve up productions masquerading as news which focus more on empty entertainment value, using clues about often quite serious news to incentivise viewers instead of actually imparting it in a useful way, and joking around.
I really appreciate JC’s style, even if he’s sometimes over the top for my liking, but I went off watching him for a while because I often didn’t find much interesting on TV (either main channel) between about 6.10pm and 7pm. He and his team manage to produce some great stuff, but I can appreciate how he no longer fits into the general crap-fest which modern prime-time television media is working to turn itself into. I wish him well for the future. Hopefully he has an opportunity to recharge with some time off, and I hope we don’t lose him and his skills for long.