My explanation: for younger generations (the media market) perception now equates with reality. Often a story about popular perceptions will seem better than one that merely reports facts.
And/or maybe the standard journalism degree doesn't necessarily impart the wide and mixed range of skills that many of us expect from a journalist. I'm sure there are always exceptions and exceptional circumstances, but perhaps it's also a consequence of very few journalists out there who actually understand how to locate, read and interpret something like a court document? Maybe it's mostly coming from hearsay, lobby group press releases, reports from others and enraged feedback from random members of the public via social media? Or not.
After a quick google there's something which doesn't sit quite right with me when I see that Massey, for example, combines Journalism with Communication and Marketing into the same school. Wasn't there a time when news media businesses sourced their staff from places where they already had actual experience in things, and then trained them up? I guess times change.
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.
“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".
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.)
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.
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 )
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
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.