Hard News: Media7: A new censor -- and a showdown for student media?
45 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
etceteras that I have encountered.
There's a T shirt :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
crowning glory
very good
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
If I also may be honest, I would have liked to have heard more from Peter G and less from Robert W. I agree with Lilith that it was probably the least interesting segment of the show (in what was a really enjoyable show overall). I enjoyed hearing from the Maori scientists; Mike Joy is a treasure; and I thought Peter Griffin's roundup of the best and worst science coverage in the media was really excellent with spot on choices.
-
I would have like to have seen segments thrown together and less people interviewed but hey, not my show. I always want more when sitting in on these recordings, because it is really interesting stuff, but as Mr Coleman (finally)said to me , he and I do probably differ on our views about quality telly, so, I’m just glad I can experience all of Media 7 stuff when ever I feel like it…. for now :)
-
andin, in reply to
However, Mike Joy was a star and I thought the perspectives from the Maori scientists was interesting.
OK I'll bite. Interesting yes quite a useful word really.
So the Taniwha is for our benefit warning of a possible rip in a river flow. Yes many primitive peoples came up with this kind of explanation. Its a fiction of course, but are we supposed to play along all the same?
And the anthropologist's "there are many truths" gambit. Well yes I suppose you could say that. So what now? I want my individual truth, is that OK?Also the word dinosaur caused the host to do a double take. But personally I couldn't fault the use of the word in the context in which it was made.
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
That 's what I thought. She ain't a writer for nuffin!
-
Excellent show last night, but I'm afraid I've got a long-standing bone to pick with the assertion that our censorship laws are "objective" rather than "philisophical". Really, guys? I'd say censorship is one area where value judgements around concepts like injury to "the public good" are unavoidable, but it really doesn't help public dialogue if we pretend they're not going on.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
etceteras that I have encountered.
There’s a T shirt :)
As in, "your smile eyes knees and..."?
-
I have wondered on the subject of honorifics. If one was an Earl and received an OBE would one become an Earlobe?
-
Geoff Lealand, in reply to
Excellent show last night, but I'm afraid I've got a long-standing bone to pick with the assertion that our censorship laws are "objective" rather than "philisophical".
I agree with you, Craig. It would be great to have a philosopher in charge, rather than the usual lawyer of choice--to begin, for example, to pick apart the language of injurious to the public good What is' injury'? How do measure it (in both the short-term and long-term)? What is the 'public' these days? What is 'good' for them?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
It would be great to have a philosopher in charge . . .
It'd play nicely on TV where, instead of the contrived intro shot of the expert pretending to busy themselves with folders 'n tomes, the sage would be seen deep in contemplation of a human skull cradled in their palm.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I agree with you, Craig. It would be great to have a philosopher in charge, rather than the usual lawyer of choice–to begin, for example, to pick apart the language of injurious to the public good
To be fair to Andrew Jack (and his predecessors) he's totally right that he has to work within the legislative framework he's got. I just wish we'd all stop pretending that "injury to the public good" is some kind of objective concept like the speed of light.
-
I liked Andrew Jack -- he wasn't what I expected from a former legal advisor to Customs and the police, I'll tell you that.
The show is online here.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
To be fair to Andrew Jack (and his predecessors) he’s totally right that he has to work within the legislative framework he’s got. I just wish we’d all stop pretending that “injury to the public good” is some kind of objective concept like the speed of light.
I think the point is that the law now is – for better or worse – more explicitly prescriptive, leaving rather less room for intangible value judgements. Which is not, as you note, the same as being wholly objective.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I think the point is that the law now is – for better or worse – more explicitly prescriptive, leaving rather less room for intangible value judgements.
I think that's a fair point, and anyone who could watch Kirby Dick's This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing expose of the MPAA. [Warning: Link contains a playable extract from film containing not entirely safe for work language. Like "senior citizen gang-bang". And a cartoon dolphin doing something aberrant to a cartoon whale. Don't ask.]
-
andin, in reply to
They can go on tho' and ..um... connect.
Quality may also be an issue.
They'd have to bring a laptop. -
The VSM really annoys me because our University of Auckland Tramping (hiking) club, which have been the largest, friendliest and most established club on campus will lose out funding from AUSA for the upcoming semester. Which means, despite our push for membership drive in which that's where our majority funding comes from will be gone. The National Bank Dole SuperFood University of Auckland Tramping Club doesn't really have the same ring doesn't it?
PS: I'm the publication officer this year.
/rant off
-
Really, guys? I’d say censorship is one area where value judgements around concepts like injury to “the public good” are unavoidable, but it really doesn’t help public dialogue if we pretend they’re not going on.
It wasn't covered in the show, but don't the censors do a regular survey of community values and adjust how they apply their rules depending on the results. Asking people who they feel about certain swear words, images etc?
-
David Hood, in reply to
don’t the censors do a regular survey of community values and adjust how they apply their rules depending on the results
A bit like qantas
-
Nice to see ACT trying to rip the human heart (still beating) out of our tertiary institutions - the Student Union system provides a much needed social balance for students - if all students can do is study there will be serious social implications further down the track for them (If not while they are still at uni)...
So how will this "non-compulsory student unions" work ?
Will there be special areas, ghettos?
Will people who wish to belong have to wear a distinctive mark so they can use student union facilities?
What happens to existing facilities and plant...Be interesting to know what clubs the ACT members involved in this action were part of when they were at uni...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.