Thinking of the title, to be fair it's not really literal.
Or is it?
I've not yet had a chance to see ABC's coverage, but Radio NZ's MediaWatch also covered the Chinese propaganda lift-out thing a few weeks ago. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201802964/media-deals-to-boost-china's-voice
In other news (as nobody's yet referenced it), The Spinoff declared this morning that it was doing away with comments.
John Campbell also covered the tax situation tonight, having a short interview with Terry Baucher (a tax consultant).
One short passage that caught my notice, though, was that according to Mr Baucher there apparently is an Uber New Zealand... which receives some kind of marketing payment from the web of overseas companies that shift money between tax regimes. I don't know what implications this might have for legal liability of encouraging lawbreaking. Possibly not much.
RNZ already has lots of niche parts.
Yes it does. But most of the parts can't be easily replicated by any random person running a blog with comments enabled for everyone who drops by.
On a very related tangent..... Wallace Chapman, on RNZ, interviewed Darrin Hodgetts of Massey University.
After researching poverty internationally for over 20 years, Darrin Hodgetts finds a "victim-blaming, punitive approach" to welfare in his home country New Zealand, where the poor are punished for being poor. Professor Hodgetts talks with Wallace Chapman about the need for a more caring and humane approach to New Zealanders in poverty.
If you run any kind of writable website, jokers will post links on it to various unrelated places
That's true. But it does cause me to what value it's expected to add if it's acceptable to post unverifiable rubbish yet not okay to post referenced information.
I'm really in mixed minds about RadioNZ's decision to nuke comment threads on its website. On one hand, it's not an especially toxic place (right now), but on the other hand I think it has every potential to be so if a wider range of people used it. It's an avenue for any random person to confuse the journalistic information which they're underneath.
Following from that, what's the value of having it if there's only a small niche of people getting involved? Those people may as well just get together around a blog or a social media site (like here), and then RadioNZ doesn't have to invest resources in moderating the whole thing which might be more usefully used for journalism, or something else in its charter.
Maybe. What got me was that the deletion wasn't because of what I'd said or how I'd said it.
It was because I'd linked to a news article from the Otago Daily Times, and an open letter from Federated Mountain Clubs (basically to demonstrate a counter-claim at least as significant as the unverified claim the story was reporting), each of which I'd specifically referred to in the comment. According to what I was told, if I just said the stuff without linking to the references, as if I'd made it all up, then the comment would have been fine.
If that's the only way to have a discussion then I don't see the value in having the discussion, because it's just a bunch of people talking to each other, baselessly asserting themselves without being allowed to establish any evidence for anything.
On the topic, did anyone else happen to catch this weird rationalisation of Winston Peters, a couple of days ago? I can only find it reported in that one place on Stuff, and I'm amazed that he hasn't been called out for and questioned further on it.
Apparently the majority who voted against law reform were concerned about AIDS, and if there had been more knowledge of the coming medical advances then he and others might have voted differently. Even if that were actually true, it's disturbing to even see him still try to use that reasoning in modern times.
I'd say more, but a comment under the article from someone called Pomble says it so much better than I ever could:
So heterosexual people could be trusted to use contraception to protect themselves from STD's, but homosexual people couldn't? The idea that HIV is purely "a gay disease' has been debunked time and time again. Unprotected sex, sharing needles, or exposure to HIV-infected blood are the main ways for adults to become infected. Yes, there is more unprotected sex in certain demographics of the population and therefore a disproportionate number of new cases, and homosexual or bisexual males are a much higher number in the western world, but why shouldn't they have been trusted with their own contraception then, any more than they are now? Surely a society where people aren't marginalised and made to feel different or ostracised for their choices, would encourage them to feel secure and make positive choices for themselves? Maybe the problem is pure and simple small-mindedness? A state of mind which doesn't seem to have evolved much in certain areas of New Zealand, sadly...
Does anyone have easy access to Hansard from that time? It could also be fascinating to read what Winston Peters actually said on the topic, as opposed to what he's claiming now. I don't personally have time to go to the library and hunt through giant reference books, though.
Uber are outside the jurisdiction
To what extent is this true?
A quick search of the Companies Register shows at least three companies registered in the past couple of years: Uber Cabs NZ Limited (1 April 2015), Uber Taxi Services NZ Ltd (1 April 2015) and Uber Taxis NZ Limited (20 November 2014).
Are any or all of these companies affiliated with NZ's Uber presence? Their listed directors and shareholders all seem tied to Auckland, although perhaps that's just a proxy via a local accounting company. Or are they all just vapour?
Furthermore, Richard Menzies who was blabbing on National Radio about how the law didn't matter, and refers to himself as the New Zealand Operations Lead, is in Auckland. Is he in any way personally liable?