Having said that, the very public harassment that is discussed in Russell’s post… well, that does feel different to me. Something about the display of it, and thinking that it’s clever to display yourself as a harassing fool so prominently.
Am I right in thinking that there's a substantial link between this form of sexual harassment, at least, and bullying culture? (Exerting power that doesn't come from merit of the action so much as from privilege or position, or something else unrelated, or something like that.)
Is it reasonable to think that generally addressing either culture could positively affect the other? Or am I drawing a bad connection?
I don’t wan’t to distract too much from this rapidly evolving thread, which is obviously serious, but I think it’s amusing that there’s now a discussion of the discussion about the discussion. Hopefully adding this 4th layer of meta-discussion doesn’t confuse things too much further. :)
Look at him up there, clearly representing New Zealand. (2:29 onwards)
The increase in cost wouldn’t be huge, although it’s hard to see either major channel doing this as they’ve moved away from the regions and a centralised feed suite is obviously cheaper.
News bulletins, maybe. Would local weather forecasts be so useful?
TV news bulletins add value with stuff like journalism or (these days) entertainment. If they're focusing mostly on entertainment for generating the added value which makes it worth something for their viewers, then I guess it's also consistent with not being too bothered with reducing the quality of the news which the entertainment pretends to be.
Local weather forecasts might have been useful in the past, but TV studios have normally presented the same information which, these days, can easily be gotten either as good or better direct from the MetService or its competitors via internet, frequently on connected devices that many people keep within arms reach 24-7. The main point of difference on modern TV is having banter from someone with a personality presenting it.
There doesn’t seem to have been much media reaction to TV3’s Newshrub launch,
Mediawatch covered it a few days ago (lots of summary on that page).
They included a lengthy interview with Jeff Hampton, who left Mediaworks. Much of his concern about the change in format seemed to be introspective in the sense that it was no longer possible for him to “own” his stories despite doing lots of work on them, though he also noted other issues with management not understanding much outside of Auckland and particularly not in the South Island. He also got in a jab at the finding of Scout instead of real news in a place like Dunedin.
That’s one of the few Mediawatch episodes I’ve seen covered on Stuff, albeit under its entertainment heading!
Anyone who’s read Public Address for a while appreciates that it’s a low-noise, robust discussion area with some damn fine contributors.
Yes. I really enjoy Public Address for this reason, despite not being so frequent a contributor as some others here.
I appreciate PA has a political leaning and I'm not going to presume to tell Russell and others what to do, but I was also feeling a few similar concerns before Richard brought them up. Having occasional guest posts from an insider is interesting, but routinely letting the Labour Party express itself about how awesome and competent its leader is, or how superfantabulously brilliant its new policy is, and so on, makes PA feel much more like an outlet that's prioritising political expression -- sometimes spin -- of the Labour Party insiders, instead of prioritising critique and discussion from outside.
I'm happy to go with it on the grounds that there's still good discussion here, but to me it definitely it feels like a shift.
Hi Steve. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole link but don’t think that specific quote you’ve picked necessarily demonstrates the US trying to put a stranglehold on everyone else, given that good trade agreements should benefit all participants, including the USA. That’s not inconsistent with what’s being said. But I agree that this result very probably is a case of big economies trying to stomp on others so they don’t have to adapt.
Is it very clear, yet, what the economic hit of not signing would be? Most of what I’ve heard, scaremongering or not, is that even if there’s negligible future benefit, there would likely be huge losses from the current situtation of not being part of the group in future.
Even if that justifies signing, it infuriates me even more, because it just means New Zealand, with other smaller economies, has let itself become trapped in a classic prisoners’ dilemma, with the US & Japan being the jailers. Nobody can leave without great loss to themselves, unless everyone leaves (which they won’t because too many others mightn’t).
It’s a clear example of why this type of negotiation process shouldn’t be so secret from public scrutiny. This government, since 2008 and not long after the US joined in, has repeatedly said "trust is it’ll be great", yet it’s guided New Zealand into a situation where dominant economies have been allowed to get so involved, tread on our sovereignty with little or no obvious benefit for anyone.
I've found it introspectively interesting that I've tended to go back to just listening to the audio of Checkpoint from 5pm. I normally stream it. Occasionally they make a reference to something visual, and I'll switch on the video stream which usually has just enough lag for me to hear (and see) them say the same thing all over again.
Another thing I've noticed is that, up against the major TV new channels, it's easier within this household to get Checkpoint on TV in the evenings from 6pm onwards. I definitely prefer the Radio NZ news over typical television news, with its short and concise bulletins that get straight to the point within the first few minutes, followed by more in-depth analysis where it's useful. My wife's commented that she finds it easier to listen to people when she can see them speaking. She's never been much of a radio listener.
If Radio NZ is going to take advantage of its visual output in future then subtitles, or at least some form of text news ticker or annotation, would be nice. I'm not hearing impaired, but sometimes I appreciate subtitles just so I don't have to hear over everything else in an often noisy environment.
Stick to this
That said, $35k/year is going to be $31,010 after tax in the Cook Islands. Subtracting another $5,000 from that seems like a big chunk of income simply to retain repayment obligations so as to avoid being arrested on the next visit to NZ and to stop the interest climbing even higher.
Also, if it weren’t for the Cook Islands interest write-off option he’d be screwed at paying just $5,000/year. Miss a single $5,000 repayment, and the accrued 5.3% interest (the current rate) will push $130,000 owed up to $136,890!
Interestingly, according to IRD, if he's been in the Cook Islands the entire time, he should have been able to apply for his loan to remain interest free. The interest write-off relies on making repayments as required, though, which is presumably the problem. At the very least you'd hope it'd mean he could prevent any more interest from building.
Furthermore, repayment obligations when overseas don't seem to be based on income, according to IRD. Unless I've misunderstood, they're based on the size of the loan. With a $40,000 loan he'd need to pay $3,000/year. With a $130,000 loan (which is >$60,000) he'd need to pay $5,000/year. Stick to this, and successfully apply for the Cook Islands interest free loan, and the interest gets written off.
This would explain where the $5,000 figure came from, which he needed to pay before being allowed to leave NZ. IRD states on that page that you may be stopped from leaving New Zealand next time you return if you're behind on your repayments.