Guarding an ammunition dump enhances the ability of ISIS to carry out terrorist acts.
But was that the PURPOSE that the NZer had when carrying out the action? Because section 13 isn't entirely clear:
(1) Is it an objective test (if you participate with the purpose of doing anything that in practice results in ISIS (or similar) being better able to carry out terrorist acts, then guilty)?
(2) Or is it subjective (you must not only do something that in practice results in ISIS (or similar) being better able to carry out terrorist acts, but you must be doing so for the reason that you want to help in that way)?
And if there is a lack of clarity, then the benefit goes to the defendant, right? Or, at least, I'm sure that's what you'd be arguing if you were defending our putative Kiwi fighter on his return!
I don’t see it as an issue of agency or responsibility in a philosophical sense. Even if it’s voters who refused to be persuaded, I think the media still ought to worry that they were powerless to persuade; and if they don’t have that power, then they have no leverage to hold those in power accountable – and we ought to worry about that.
But this assumes we should want the media "to persuade" their audience about news stories. I don't know how comfortable I am with that idea. And (some in) the media did hold those in power "to account" ... see Felix's comment above. It's just that those to whom they must account - the people of New Zealand - didn't follow through on their end of the bargain.
But nobody is saying that dirty politics is anything but dirty. It’s nearly universally decried as unethical behaviour – the only response has been “that’s the way politics is”. That’s a fundamentally toxic and corrosive idea which we ought to fight – even if the election proved it’s a popularly held opinion.
I agree! But you're not simple saying "we should keep on at the bastards and not let them get away with it". You're saying (or, I take you to be saying) "we need to reinvent the entire enterprise of journalism". And I'd like a bit more guidance of what it'll become instead before I sign up to that vision ... because how do I know that the campaigning, crusading, judgmental institution you're wanting to unleash is only going to do things that I like?
Good luck claiming ours has been doing its job.
Of course, when you define "its job" in terms of "produced the particular outcome I would like to see happen", then it hasn't. But is that the correct definition?
The first two would be basic expectations in a functioning democracy (which journalists are meant to be part of).
So ... are we not in a functioning democracy? Seriously?
Because, if so, what on earth are we doing arguing on a blogsite ... we should be building a fire on main street and shooting it full of holes!!!
You go ahead and get started. I've a couple of things to finish up before I join you later.
So what purpose is the MSM using the 50% figure for?
They're using it as shorthand for "the electoral system that allowed those who wanted to use their easily accessible vote to choose their representatives produced an outcome where National has a majority in the legislature, thereby permitting it to govern on its own."
You imply that democracy consists of putting ticks in boxes every 3 years. It doesn’t.
No. I'm saying that if you don't put a tick in a box every 3 years, then all the other democracy stuff you do is pretty much pointless.*
*Caveat - if you do democracy stuff that affects how other people put ticks in boxes, then it still has a point. But trying to get other people to change how they vote is still less effective than being part of a heavily voting cohort that garners politicians' attention for that reason alone.
Even if, as you suggest, people thought the government was taking NZ in the right direction therefore Dirty Politics didn’t fly, it is still true that the media failed to hold Collins to account, failed to hold Katherine Rich to account, and more or less failed to hold Ede/Key to account.
Well, this presupposes there was a "correct" outcome. I assume you believe (as do I) that Dirty Politics really ought to have seen Collins immediately sacked, Rich shamed from her various roles, and a large voter swing to the left of politics. You're then saying that the fact this has not in fact happened represents a failure of the media (despite the media trying to do what it should have).
But why? Why isn't it the voters or the people of New Zealand that failed? After all, they were given chapter and verse of the allegations Hager (and Greenwald and Snowden) raised. The media pounded those responsible (well, most of them) for days and days on end and showed the results on TV/in the papers/on the radio. And 48% of those who voted shrugged and said "meh" - with more people voting this time than did 3 years ago. So, just who "failed" here?
Which raises a nasty possibility, Whisper it just quietly in your inner voice at the dead of night: maybe it's people like us and what we see as being "correct" who are ... wrong? Or, at least, in a small minority that is unable to affect national politics ... which amounts to the same thing? And if so, what right do we have to demand that the institution of journalism/media "reform itself" to produce the "correct" outcomes that we desire?
I wouldn’t go as harsh as “if you don’t vote, don’t complain” – because I think even if you don’t vote, you’re still a citizen and have a right to curse your employees in the legislature as incompetent malign numpties, fairly or not, even if it gives me a migraine in the process.
Oh, sure ... you can complain. But don't expect to be listened to. Case in point - why do policies so markedly favour old people over young? Which may be terribly unfair and all that ... but it's what you get when you (or, rather, your age/class/ethnicity cohort) aren't active participants.
My point then is that saying "National only got the support of 30-odd percent of New Zealand" is potentially as misleading as "National got the support of 50 percent of New Zealand". There's no such thing as "the proper figure" here, because "proper" depends on what purpose you're using it for.
On the other hand, we can have a productive argument about what that mandate allows them to get away with.
That’s about 40% of eligible voters
Oh ... and it's not. It's about 29.8% of eligible voters.