Hard News: Dropping the Bomber
389 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
What I think matters
Is conveyed well enough at your own blog - and I quote your most recent post in full:
The common-sense nihilist political programme is that everyone in the world should become their own independent sovereign republic. And, while we're at it, we should all fuck off into space and let this place go back to being a garden. Somewhere to visit, not to live.
It's as simple as that. Let's all just fucking live forever. Why the hell not?
0 comments
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
I often agree, up to a point, with his views, but he seems to go out of his way to be hyperbolic and antagonistic. If he'd be more moderate and less hectoring he could be a force to be reckoned with.
Agreed. I think his approach appeals only to those who agree with him, in which case, it's pretty indulgent IMHO.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I've always had mixed feelings about Bradbury's approach. I often agree, up to a point, with his views, but he seems to go out of his way to be hyperbolic and antagonistic. If he'd be more moderate and less hectoring he could be a force to be reckoned with
Although there's definitetely a niche for that sort of OTT...bombast. If you generally agree with the points he's making, it's amusing and gets the troops fired up and happy. A bit like watching a rottweiler savage it's neo-nazi owner. You know you shouldn't laugh, but....
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
However, the media’s still so in love with the Key government that National have no fear of reprisals. They won last election with a policy of no policy; I reckon they can get away with another one.
Balls – Clark was pretty damn good at being “unavailable for comment” when there was no possible advantage for her getting pummeled for five minutes on Morning Report. That’s what you have a Cabinet and a small army of spin things for. Really, please say that it’s appalling and there’s better than even odds I’d agree with you. But don’t shit on a cracker and expect me to swallow the nonsense that it never happened before November 8 2008.
They won last election with a policy of no policy;
And that’s crap too – you’re entitled to your opinion that National’s platform was awful in all kinds of ways, but it’s just twanky twaddle to say they had “no policy”. (Though I guess on the bullshit buffet, it's a fine whine that matches well with the not-at-all secret "secret agenda".)
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Although there’s definitetely a niche for that sort of OTT…bombast. If you generally agree with the points he’s making, it’s amusing and gets the troops fired up and happy.
Good for preaching to the choir...but not persuasive to anyone else.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Balls - Clark was pretty damn good at being "unavailable for comment" when there was no possible advantage for her getting pummeled for five minutes on Morning Report
I don't think that's correct Craig, I can't recall Clark dodging interviews on any significant issue but it was a while ago (perhaps you mean speeding tickets or paintings rather than substantive matters).
-
Sacha, in reply to
being “unavailable for comment” when there was no possible advantage for her getting pummeled for five minutes on Morning Report.
so Key's perfect 0% attendance record says what?
-
RNZ media release.
Radio New Zealand received many complaints from listeners regarding Mr. Bradbury’s comments on The Panel during Afternoons with Jim Mora last Thursday.
The decision to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to take part in future editions of The Panel was made by the programme’s Executive Producer immediately after the programme. That decision was supported by the senior manager responsible for the programme and subsequently by the Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief.Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance. One of his comments was regarded as being potentially defamatory.
...
Mr Bradbury’s comments on The Panel on Afternoons last Thursday were inconsistent with information he had provided before going on air and Mr Bradbury later apologised to the programme’s Executive Producer.
It was made clear to him that while his invitation to appear as an occasional guest on The Panel was being withdrawn, it was not a ‘lifelong ban’.
-
Sue,
somebody is not telling the complete truth
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-i-was-banned-from-rnz.htmlI would really love to not become disillusioned with radio nz
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
(perhaps you mean speeding tickets or paintings rather than substantive matters).
No I don’t, Paul as I think you’re perfectly well aware.
so Key’s perfect 0% attendance record says what?
That you might want to qualify that statement so it's true?
-
NBH, in reply to
I don't think that's correct Craig, I can't recall Clark dodging interviews on any significant issue but it was a while ago (perhaps you mean speeding tickets or paintings rather than substantive matters).
I agree Paul, and the idea that the previous government used to engage in behaviours like refusing to front for the media, extensive use of urgency etc. is a pretty pernicious one that needs to be stamped out. It's particularly concerning given that it frames doing these things as 'business as usual', and so future governments will feel more comfortable continuing such practices.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
No I don’t, Paul as I think you’re perfectly well aware.
Craig, I'm not. I don't recall Clark avoiding media or being criticised for avoiding media. I don't think you're right.
By contrast, I do think Key has a clear strategy of (a) not recalling (b) not having the detail (c) not been present for whatever the discussion might've been about (d) or not being available for questioning.
He does simply not perform well under close scrutiny.
is a pretty pernicious one that needs to be stamped out. It's particularly concerning given that it frames doing these things as 'business as usual', and so future governments will feel more comfortable continuing such practices.
Totally agree.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
gree Paul, and the idea that the previous government used to engage in behaviours like refusing to front for the media, extensive use of urgency etc. is a pretty pernicious one that needs to be stamped out.
Actually, NBH, if you and Paul want to call me a liar please go to. I'll happy accept the word of anyone connected with Morning Report during her tenure as PM that Clark never turned down an interview request on "substantive" matters, or referred it on to a relevant minister/spokesperson. But I doubt they will, because it just ain't true - nor do I think it's ipso facto some horrible assault on democracy. That's one wolf both the loony left and the rabid right cry far too often.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What, so Key *has* appeared on Morning Report? when?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Craig, I’m not. I don’t recall Clark avoiding media or being criticised for avoiding media. I don’t think you’re right.
Well, there’s no point in continuing this since you’re convinced I’ve lied. Repeatedly. In extreme bad faith.
What, so Key *has* appeared on Morning Report? when?
And I'm out...
-
It's not necessary to call you a liar to disagree Craig.
I simply think you're wrong. I'm certain Clark will have refused an interview with NatRad and or some other major news outlet at various points in time, I'm simply saying she didn't do it on a regular basis and was not known to be wary of scrutiny. In my opinion, Key avoids them in preference for other formats.
Well, there’s no point in continuing this since you’re convinced I’ve lied. Repeatedly. In extreme bad faith.
No Craig, again I disagree, it might be bad faith though to set this discussion up in these terms. It's only in Parliament where a Members word cannot be questioned.
I'm simply saying I have a different recollection from you (and have been clear about that in this brief exchange).
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'm being serious - I'll take your word for it if he has appeared.
-
3410,
Good for preaching to the choir...but not persuasive to anyone else.
The more I think about it, I lean towards "Good Fucking Riddance".
His horrible approach has probably sent far more "swingers" right than left.
-
3410,
What, so Key *has* appeared on Morning Report? when?
Don't you get it, Sacha? Both Clark and Key have declined to appear on Morning Report on more-than-zero occasions.
</sarc> -
Perverse pedant's soapbox...
An aside: after reading Tumeke I note that Bradbury
and others use adverse when they mean averse.Adverse means 'hostile, unfavorable, opposed,' and is usually applied to situations, conditions, or events—not to people: : the dry weather has had an adverse effect on the garden.
Averse is related in origin and also has the sense of 'opposed,' but is usually employed to describe a person’s attitude: : I would not be averse to making the repairs myself.Whereas The Adverts were just bored teenagers...
-
Lilith __, in reply to
The more I think about it, I lean towards "Good Fucking Riddance".
His horrible approach has probably sent far more "swingers" right than left.
Actually, his blog post that Sue linked to is worth reading.
He says:
In the past I have enjoyed the fight with the right more than the actual point at times and have allowed myself to throw rhetoric around for the fun of it. This experience and the surprising show of support has made me appreciate the role that I have as a commentator in a media dominated by bland baby boomer pundits and hard right wing opinion masquerading as middle of the road NZ.
In the future, I will endeavour to take that media role on with the responsibility it demands. I'm not suggesting I will put away my stomping boots, but I will be a lot more focused about what I'm stomping.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I don’t think that’s correct Craig, I can’t recall Clark dodging interviews on any significant issue but it was a while ago (perhaps you mean speeding tickets or paintings rather than substantive matters).
How about Clark’s response to Hager’s GM book?
(And everyone knows hardly anyone ever comments on blogs any more. Apparently it's not trendy any more.)
-
My impression of Clark’s time as PM is like Paul WIlliams’ – she seemed very ready to talk to journalists most of the time. In fact seemed to seek them out. I’ve heard that on some occasions if journos didn’t ring her she rang them.
I don’t think anyone here is saying Clark was always amenable to being interviewed. But my impression of Key is that he never fronts*.
If some media person can weigh in with actual data it would be welcome!
*except to the BBC!
-
Sacha, in reply to
Actually, his blog post that Sue linked to is worth reading.
+1
Hard to disagree with Bradbury about how the ban happened, too.
I just don't think there was any direct pressure from the Government at all, and I say that as someone who clearly can't stand this Government and the misery they have brought to the poor of this country.
So what do I think happened? Something far more insidious than obvious interference, I think this was a case of self censorship by Radio NZ management. Their tepid desire to produce bland, non-offensive programming for mashed potato recipes has created a management style so risk adverse that they respond blindly to any perceived offence before any is actually registered.
-
Sacha, in reply to
If some media person can weigh in with actual data it would be welcome!
Same. Last date when Key was interviewed live on RNZ Morning Report would do.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.