Exception: If your story is that the President-Elect of the USA is continuing to act unprofessionally.
If your story is "the president elect of USA did/said/believes XYZ" and here is the proof (that he did/said it on twitter/facebook/TV news interview)... then that is a valid news story...
I hate all the (semi-recent) news articles on NZ Herald and Stuff that amount to "here's a praci of recent twitters about vaguely sensationalist...". something... might be a comment, an action, even a twitter post
Apparently, someone slightly celebutard or newsworthy did, or said something slightly beyond the expected ... (maybe they made a racist comment, or wore an unusual collection of clothes, or farted) this is NOT the point of the "news article"... the point of the article is how people responded on social media to this "newsworthy event".
The entire content of the "news article" is a commentary repeating what other non-entities have said on twitter (or similar) ABOUT the earlier comment/action.event..
Why or how is this news?
If someone newsworthy does something or says something newsworthy, good or bad, that may well be news, and I don't mind hearing about it or seeing it in my "trusted" news-feed, even if I don't personally find it of interest...
But when the news article is "here's some reactions from twitter, after a newsworthy (or not?) event... from previously un-heard-of twitter users of no special importance or expertise"... well...
2) you've just reduced your standing in my regards as a news source worth trusting or following in the future...
Is a hyphenated word, one word or two?
The clue is in the (singular) name… post-truth is not a hyphenated words is it?
Also, as much as I hate the concept itself... I'm thinking my vote is for "post-truth" as the winner so far? Or maybe "fake-news"?
"Make America Great Again"- post-truth
"I never said that" (despite unedited video/audio recordings of same)- post-truth.
Also, some of the other quite good suggestions... (truthiness, click-bait, learnings) are good words to make fun of and try to expunge their applicability, and therefore usage from the lexicon... but they are older than 2016 I think?
very junior partner in Cocksplat, Fucktrumpet and Numpty who claims he was a Prime Minister at some stage in his career
That is very probably who he worked for, but I believe you have the exact job-title a little over-accounted for in the syllable stakes? (but then, over accounting is probably part of the job description?)
I still cant figure out if he was "Pri-Minster" or "Pry-Mincer" ?
Thank you for this post...I agree with it, and would have also been prepared to take that risk (of Shearer being a good PM).
But I'm reminded of another Leader of the Opposition who had similar failings in public.
He seemed thoughtful and able to see the grey between the black and white, and this didn't come over well in the media or with his peers, who rolled him.
His name was Bill English.
I don't subscribe to his political leanings, but he still might be able to show some of that thoughtfulness and consideration that we wanted to see in a Shearer PM?
Or not... apparently he's learned a lot in the past 14 years... maybe the bits I liked in him are already gone?
I like taking part in phone polling when I have the time (sometimes it’s inconvenient)… and I 100% hang up on automated calls as soon as I determine they are recordings and not a live human… I don’t care how worthy they may be (I don’t wait to find out…)
I can see an opening for human initiated phone contact polling, where you get passed over to the automated questions/response once the respondee has agreed to take part… it might even seem better to the respondee (me?) because you don’t feel like your answers are being judged by the person on the other end, and the asked questions will have less of the “I’ve asked this same question 100 times already today” tone in the voice…
It would cost more than 100% automated... but the employee calling targets can get onto making the next call to the next target while the machine takes the next 5-20 mins taking my responses...
P.S. whether it's phone or internet surveys... dont bullshit with the "this will just take 5 mins" when you know it's going to be 15-20.... that really pisses me off and makes me less likely to tale part next time.... You cant even ask all those questions in 5 mins, let alone expect me to respond after a few seconds consideration...
. The Mt Eden one opened in 1986 and was The Galaxy (uppercase T and a y) and was owned by Phil Warren and Don Lillian. When they sold it in 1988 it became The Powerstation (the stage was moved at the same time).
Wow… only two years as The Galaxy? My growing up and exposure to the live music scene is such that I recall the tired and run-down Galaxy undergoing major renovation to become the bright and shiny new (and very grey/pink, glass brick stereotypical ’80’s) Powerstation…
I had no clue it had only been The Galaxy for such a short time? I used to help some friends in a band set-up and carry their gear (roadie?).. I was still under-age as far as drinking was concerned but this was (un-paid) work… My main recollection of The Galaxy was walking across the vinyl covered dance-floor and hearing the noise your sneakers made as you pulled/peeled them off the floor… It was very sticky… presumably spilled beer that was not cleaned?
I roadied in many other pubs (and the Powerstation)… and do not recall the same experience at any other venue… (and it was on at least 3 different occasions at the Galaxy)…. I just assumed it had been there forever…
I haven't yet tried an e-bike... but am considering one.... but I just wanted to point out one of the fallacies against cycling in general...
"haven't got the time"....
I commute daily from Green Bay to Parnell, it's about 19km by car or 17km by bike. (half on roads, half on North western cycle-way)
The bike (in rush hour) usually takes 45 mins, plus or minus 5 mins depending on wind/traffic/ energy levels... always. The only variation being an occasional flat tyre which takes an extra 10-12 mins.
The car takes anywhere between 35 mins to 45 mins in normal traffic and weather, but frequently over an hour if theres an accident, rain, or "just because".... and occasionally 1.5 hours when there's a traffic snarl-up worthy of making the news....
The bike cant match the non-peak drive time... but that's not when I'm commuting... I'm commuting at the same time as 90% of the rest of us... and at that time, the bike is a little slower than the cars best, but it's far more regular and predictable... and frequently beats the car.
The time I leave home is much the same... and even allowing for the time it takes to shower on arrival at work (yes- I realise this is not available to many people) ... I'm more often late starting in the car than on the bike. I would imagine an e-bike would have even more reliable trip/arrival times than the push-bike.
It does not look like it’s the trail beside the creek, but further up the ridgeline along the back of the Unitec campus.
Which begs the question... If you're on it, having come up the (not yet existing but come 2017) rail-side path from New Lynn and Avondale... And assuming a significant minority, if not actual majority of such riders were intending to head towards the CBD on the NW cycleway... Why would you want to head across the creek westward (lovely and scenic bridge/path as it may be), just to drop down past the GT Nth Rd BP station to the depth of the waterview interchange and climb back up the eastward ramp to Carrington Rd past Unitec... when you could just immediately meander eastward from that path through the Tech or quiet side-roads to get to Carrington Rd and the Southerland St link to the cycle-way without the drop and climb?
I would love to know how this random topic was picked out of a hat
The selection is genuinely random (I've been lead to believe?)... the main criteria for being pulled out, is to have first been put in...
As was pointed out by an earlier poster... one possible explanation for government party members to put (inconsequential?) bills into the hat for possible drawing, is simply to reduce the mathematical possibility of non-government members bills from being randomly selected...
I mean, if the government really felt it was an important issue that needed imminent addressing... they'd just introduce it to the house the way most other bills are done, right?