Hard News: In the nicest possible way
248 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Or this one -- though it seems to be more in the class of make shit up, liberally season with the tears of a crocodile then sit back and wonder why bloggers have credibility problems.
To be fair, there is actually public interest in the sacking of a minister of the crown. Key created this problem for himself by refusing to say exactly why Worth was dismissed.
If it was because "he was an adulterer", the article has a point in saying that Key has set a new and potentially problematic standard for ministerial conduct.
-
I get the same icky feeling from complaining about Garth George: a guilty sense that you're just part of an ongoing cycle of attention-seeking and gratification.
It's the Circle of Life, baby -- remade by David Lynch, Cronenberg and Tim Burton!
-
If it was because "he was an adulterer", the article has a point in saying that Key has set a new and potentially problematic standard for ministerial conduct.
And if those 'National sources' are a big a figment of "Eddie's' imagination as Mr. Slater's intimate Labour contacts? Oh, that's right -- no recourse to the Press Council or BSA, and if your servers are offshore it becomes rather difficult to sue either.
Whatever I say against the Herald on Sunday it did sack someone for pulling that shit, and it doesn't allow its reporters to use pseudonyms.
There is a reason why I don't read a lot of political blogs any more -- and a large part of it is because truth isn't only the first casualty of partisan hackery, it gets savagely done over.
-
And if those 'National sources' are a big a figment of "Eddie's' imagination as Mr. Slater's intimate Labour contacts? Oh, that's right -- no recourse to the Press Council or BSA, and if your servers are offshore it becomes rather difficult to sue either.
But even Worth's friends have been rather strongly implying that the incident that formed the basis of the Korean woman's complaint was a mere tryst. It's not as if the idea has come out of the blue.
And the allegation itself was exhaustively reported pretty much everywhere.
OTOH, Tracey Watkins had sources too:
The Dominion Post understands that Mr Key's hand was forced by the discovery during investigations by his office into the Korean woman's complaints that Dr Worth had misled him over other matters.
Dr Worth is understood to have admitted, when challenged, that he had misled Mr Key.
Senior party sources say that raised serious questions over Dr Worth's judgment and whether his word could be trusted both grounds for a prime minister to sack a minister.
Presumably Mr Key could clear it up.
-
"I think what we have here is a failure to communicate"
"Public interest" as well we know, is oft misunderstood. The way Key used it was, imho, "in the best interest of the public"
So, what was so disruptive to the Nation as a whole in the actions of Mr. Worth?. Was it purely that we, as the public at large, need to have such confidence in our Ministers that their dismissal becomes secondary to our confidence in their leader to the point that we should not question his motives?
The notion that we should not "bother out little heads" about such trivia seems a little demeaning to me and i feel, just a tad, insulted. -
Presumably Mr Key could clear it up.
Sorry for trying to de-derail back onto the question I originally asked: But what if Eddie's "National sources" don't exist? Hey, I can repeat gossip and innuendo too; but its not much of a substitute for sourced fact.
Or does The Standard get a pass that would not (and should not) be extended to David Farrar or Cameron Slater?
OTOH, Tracey Watkins had sources too
So did Stephen Cook when he breathlessly reported Sharon Shipton had left her husband -- which came as a very great surprise to her and which she (quite rightly) extracted a grovelling apology for.
Pardon me if I tend to regard A. Nonymous as a questionable source, and think -- at least in that respect -- blogs should be held to the same standard as the MSM.
-
If anything, he comes across as a Claytons Rambo in that photo.
Are you meaning Clayton Weatherston?
"A Claytons [noun]" is a Australasian English phrase. It stems from Claytosx, a non-alcoholic whisky substitute that was marketed as "the drink you have when you're not having a drink".
Wikipedia sez:
The term "Claytons" [is] used as an adjective to signify a compromise which satisfies no-one, or any form of inferior substitute or low-quality imitation, largely synonymous with the word "ersatz". For example, a hasty or temporary repair may be only a Claytons solution to a problem.
-
So did Stephen Cook when he breathlessly reported Sharon Shipton had left her husband -- which came as a very great surprise to her and which she (quite rightly) extracted a grovelling apology for.
At the risk of falling into the vortex, how does one bogus story by a journalist with a dreadful reputation become a general rule?
Pardon me if I tend to regard A. Nonymous as a questionable source, and think -- at least in that respect -- blogs should be held to the same standard as the MSM.
And political reporters cite political sources in news stories every day of the week. Why is it more of an outrage if a blogger does it?
Or are you saying that no report that does not give up its sources can be considered valid?
Anyway, I think the issue was Key's judgement rather than Worth's private life.
-
Most depressed people do not make a career out of viciously and gleefully attacking others. While I have sympathy for Slater's mental health, that does not excuse his behaviour. And yes, bullies piss me off. Which probably does not excuse my behaviour either. Guess which cheek I'm turning.
Is it not possible to separate Slater's mental health from his approach to politics or are we saying he is pathological?
Sacha's comments closely resemble my own. I think Slater's a thug. His choice of targets, younger people such as Going and James Sleep, is despicable. I'm very clear that anyone associated with him who's not actively encouraging him to moderate his approach, is an enabler. That means Farrar, Hooton Bhatnagar and, possibly anyone in the PMs/leadership team of the National Party. No wonder the Press Sec's keen to get some distance. Better still, starve him of access and information.
Why on earth would the media give this bloke a profile, this reimagined Chloe of Wainui, angry online Chloe?
-
And political reporters cite political sources in news stories every day of the week. Why is it more of an outrage if a blogger does it?
It's a tricky area, but when, say, John Armstrong runs a story based on a leak from National we know that he has (very) strong contacts within the National Party so there's a measure of trust there. When Matthew Hooton runs a story based on his senior contacts within the Labour Party, or if an anonymous author at The Standard bases a story on anonymous rumours they've heard from their sources within National then I think we're entitled to call bullshit - especially since The Standard then begs the media to go hunting for stories about the private lives of the rest of Key's MPs on the basis of their unsourced stories.
Why on earth would the media give this bloke a profile, this reimagined Chloe of Wainui, angry online Chloe?
Whatever you can say about Slater, the SST profile was pretty damn fascinating and funny. My favourite line:
I am literally not afraid of anyone. You’d have to put a gun in my face, and then it would also have to be a real one for me to start worrying, and even then I’d be working out angles so they wouldn’t do it.
-
Not afraid of water pistols is Cameron Slater, no matter how realistic they look.
-
I am literally not afraid of anyone. You’d have to put a gun in my face and even then I’d be working out angles so they wouldn’t do it.
Sound just like... Grant Dexter. Claytons people?.
(As in being human without the humanity) -
Whatever you can say about Slater, the SST profile was pretty damn fascinating and funny. My favourite line:
I am literally not afraid of anyone. You’d have to put a gun in my face, and then it would also have to be a real one for me to start worrying, and even then I’d be working out angles so they wouldn’t do it.
Which is why I would be nervous about him, frankly. He so completely lacks judgment he probably is dangerous. Remarkably, his well connected mates either don't see this or don't care; they see merit in having a Begbie type character on their team.
-
I am literally not afraid of anyone. You’d have to put a gun in my face, and then it would also have to be a real one for me to start worrying, and even then I’d be working out angles so they wouldn’t do it.
Pffft. Rambo can't even provide for his family.
-
Personally, I'd assumed that if Mr Key was serious about 'not in the public interest', he mean not particularly enhancing the public interest, rather than contrary to it.
-
And if those 'National sources' are a big a figment of "Eddie's' imagination as Mr. Slater's intimate Labour contacts? Oh, that's right -- no recourse to the Press Council or BSA, and if your servers are offshore it becomes rather difficult to sue either.
Sorry*, but I'm with Craig on this one. Why are we even entertaining the possibility that what 'Eddie' is claiming isn't a pile of unulterated bullshit? Journalists often don't cite their sources, but are held to professional standards and - and still we take what they write with a grain of salt or five; an anonymous partisan blogger held to no such standards who claims inside knowledge should I think be assumed to be full of shit until proven otherwise.
*I'm not actually sorry.
-
"unulterated". Nice word, go me.
-
Sorry for the diversion, but here's a sad, interesting story combining the economic recession and a healthy dose of bigotry: "Traditional" Camaro demographic upset over GM's gay marketing efforts
-
A lot of it's muscle. My shoulders are wide. Buck, my personal trainer, is a monster."
And I bet his shit don't stink
"I am literally not afraid of anyone. You'd have to put a gun in my face, and then it would also have to be a real one for me to start worrying, and even then I'd be working out angles so they wouldn't do it."
Yep, stoopid is as stoopid does.
-
Sorry*, but I'm with Craig on this one. Why are we even entertaining the possibility that what 'Eddie' is claiming isn't a pile of unulterated bullshit?
Er, because possibly it isn't unadulterated bullshit?
I'd hardly go the the bank on it and I have no idea who Eddie is or who his sources are. He's certainly partisan. But he does generally seem to get his facts right, and he's previously argued with some competence on this and other issues. ie: he's not a loon.
I'm just not sure why it's such an outrage that he should write a blog post if he believed he'd genuinely been told the reason for Worth's sacking. It's not like he's bragging about it: he actually says "Don’t get too excited. It’s not the super-conspiracy."
The issue isn't Worth's personal life, for which even his friends are making no particular claims of virtue, it's Key's judgement and whether he might have set a problematic new standard. I wouldn't have bothered to link to the post, but it hardly seems vile.
-
Er, because possibly it isn't unadulterated bullshit?
What does that even mean? Of course it could be true, hell, anything could be true. But some speculation is just not worthy of being dignified with discussion. An anonymous partisan blogger citing anonymous sources in its enemy party, in a country where freedom of the press isn't prosecuted, is simply not good enough to pass muster. Call me back when Eddie has a name and a surname, or the source has a name or a surname, or the story has been corroborated by an actual journalist with something to lose.
-
Call me back when Eddie has a name and a surname . . .
-
What does that even mean? Of course it could be true, hell, anything could be true. But some speculation is just not worthy of being dignified with discussion.
It's not really Worth's personal life that's being speculated on, as I've tried to point out.
(Unless the Korean woman is a truly vicious liar, they were in a hotel room together. His friends -- eg: Richard Griffin -- appear to have suggested that whatever took place was consensual. She has stuck to her story even after dropping the complaint. It would probably have been a messy prosecution to bring, given the woman said they had breakfast together in the morning. But whatever. Not the point.)
It's speculation about the actions of the Prime Minister -- in the absence of an explanation as to why he took the serious action of dismissing one of his ministers. When he declares that it's "not in the public interest" for him to say so, are you seriously saying that's not worthy of discussion?
Of course we'd weigh the claim in the light of the place where it's published. But you appear to be taking offence that he has written up what he believes to be a genuine tip. I'm bloody sure I would have if I'd been him.
-
It's not really Worth's personal life that's being speculated on, as I've tried to point out.
No, I get it, it's Key's motivations. That's the whole point of Eddie's article.
Of course we'd weigh the claim in the light of the place where it's published. But you appear to be taking offence that he has written up what he believes to be a genuine tip. I'm bloody sure I would have if I'd been him.
You give people the most extraordinary latitude sometimes. David Fisher admits looking with a telescope through the office windows of the editor of a rival paper, but says there was no malice in it, therefore there was no malice in it. "Eddie" from The Standard claims to have a 'scoop', to know definitively why Key sacked worth, from 'sources in and around the National Party' who somehow all chose to open up to this anonymous blogger from the other side, and you're willing to accept that he (or she, according to Joe) is acting in good faith.
Why?
-
It's not like he's bragging about it: he actually says "Don’t get too excited. It’s not the super-conspiracy."
Nah, just charged Key with being a panty-sniffing hypocrite, -- which he considered a very big deal -- based on anonymous (and possibly entirely ficticious) National Party sources. Sorry, Russell, but you're seriously telling me that Farrar or the Herald wouldn't be getting a serve from you if they claimed that Goff sacked someone "for adultery", on a pretty flimsy basis?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.