I also dislike it, but mostly I think because there seems to be so much focus around simply repeating stuff people have said instead of critically evaluating and reporting on stuff with some domain expertise. (That's also about what this Taxpayer Union thing seems to be -- it seems very easy to get repeated verbatim these days by a media that's seeking out cheap and easy material to churn through with minimal oversight.)
Apart from the lack of soliciting the view, though, are those Twitter embeddings too different from vox pops? Radio and TV mediums have been doing that for ages, pointless as it might be.
Yeah, no worries. I'm also not trying to stand up for the journalist. More just expressing that I think they should be judged more on their work than on Twitter relationships that are largely characteristic for people in their roles.
mmmm twitter is a good fast indicator that there might be a story - but it has zero credibility.
Exception: If your story is that the President-Elect of the USA is continuing to act unprofessionally.
I just don't see how retweeting a popular earthquake photo posted by Jordan Williams should have much bearing on it either way.
Maybe you're right that some people will think that looks bad. But with similar logic they probably also think it's suspicious if a political journalist talks to the PM or the leader of the opposition (depending on their sympathies). Given the work they're doing it's unfair to hold that against them.
Not that this excuses regurgitating easily debunked Taxpayer Union rubbish as if it's newsworthy.
She’d probably come off looking a little better if she wasn’t following both the Taxpayers’ Union and Jordan William’s Twitter accounts and hadn’t retweeted him a couple of months ago.
I don't know much of journalist at all beyond this story, but that doesn't seem fair to me.
Surely many journalists would be following these organisations if they want to stay up-to-date with the crap-fest of statements (opinions may vary) that are being pushed out into the world, whether newsworthy or justified or not. Following someone on twitter doesn't imply agreeing with them or liking them, and of the 1,858 accounts she follows I'd be surprised if that has much to do with sympathy for many of them.
The only retweet I can see from Jordan Williams is this earthquake photo tweet from 14th November 2014 that was retweeted 177 times and favourited 133 times. Is there something else?
Main problems are pressure on often junior journos to file stories fast - and lax, unethical oversight from editors and publishers.
That combined with corporate PR divisions, certain lobby groups and "think tanks" like the TU having basically rearranged themselves for the express purpose of filling the gap and writing "news" for the journalists who are no longer well resourced to investigate and do it themselves. And if media doesn't publish it, just get your likely audience into a Facebook group and ensure they build most of their perspective directly from you.
Sometimes I agree with arguments that purpose-built think tanks produce. From time to time there's useful and robust research that wouldn't ever have been carried out without someone who wanted to prove something. But the fact that so much of it is now merely getting verbosely regurgitated without context or challenge, sometimes by media that's not even well equipped to understand what it's reporting on (besides 'he said she said') is worrying.
That "Ratepayers Report" collaboration between the Taxpayers Union and Fairfax in 2014 (now offline but here's a referencing article on Stuff and a TU press release) was disturbing to see from Fairfax.
So, contrary to that press release, what would have been the man's incentive to plead guilty?
It is barbaric and contrary to the expectations of a liberal democracy that a judge is required to impose a seven-year sentence for a crime that he or she determines should receive a one year sentence.
It is also of note that there is no incentive for a person charged with a 3rd strike offence to plead guilty because the sentence will be exactly the same after a costly and pointless trial which exposes victims unnecessarily to the trauma of being in court. Criminal lawyers are already seeing a reluctance on persons charged with 2nd strike offences to plead guilty because they must serve the whole of the sentence imposed without parole and that tendency is likely to increase as 3rd strike offenders come before the court.
The number of prisoners has been increasing each year along with the cost which is likely to be $900 million dollars this year. That cost will continue to increase because of inappropriate sentences that judges will be required to impose as a result of the three-strikes legislation. There is an additional cost both financially and to society in excessive prison sentences because the longer a person spends in prison the more likely it is that he or she will reoffend when released.
The NZ Criminal Bar Association would prefer to see the additional money that will be required to keep 3rd strike offenders in prison spent on rehabilitation with the object of keeping the New Zealand population out of prison. It calls upon the government to repeal the three-strikes legislation before judges are required to impose further inappropriate sentences on third strike offenders.
Replacing Scalia with another hard liner is a given, but if two more of the elderly liberal-leaning judges are succeeded by conservative appointees under Trump.. that would make the Court a conservative, regressive institution for decades.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I still really struggle to get my head around how much politics and the political system seems intertwined with expected normality of wider government in the USA, right from levels as low as arranging how elections and voting works, and all the way up to the top levels of appointments in the courts.
I mean in the sense of how it's standard, sometimes effectively required, for people to register a political allegiance. That allegiance seems to follow people around in media and in future appointments as if everything about that person, and everything they do and why, is somehow tied to political ideology... and that the declared allegiance is at least as an appropriate way of judging them as their actual actions.
Would it be acceptable in any other modern democracy if top level judges were appointed not specifically on their qualifications and experience, but on a political leader's assessment of the appointee's consistency with that leaders' ideology?
Maybe that stuff happens in New Zealand and we just don't talk about it so openly, but I think what I find least comforting with seeing the USA is not that it's talked about so openly as that it's treated as completely normal and acceptable. What's the argument for that being a good way for things to work?
Readers of BBC News, the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald will also be very relieved.