Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest
345 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Be warned, though, that some (not all) technical writing positions[**] and many (probably not all?) testing positions do involve nontrivial amounts of coding.
I have some coding knowledge - HTML I don't mind, dabbled in PHP years back, had a crash course in .NET C# as a side part of my existing job - but nowhere near enough to make a living from it.
Some more 2nd opinions here.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Taking it further, I’m not even sure where to look for official info about who’s even standing as a candidate in my electorate… short of turning up at the polling booth and reading the options on the ballot paper. Is there somewhere?
Also RadioNZ has a page
-
And find your electorate, if your unsure here
-
UglyTruth, in reply to
Ah, the old etymological fallacy.
No, it's more about ambiguity in language. For the sake of argument let's call the early definition a true oath, and a promise that does not call deity to witness, but is still called an oath, a hollow oath. Someone who makes a hollow oath is implicitly claiming the benefit of a true oath when they call their hollow oath an oath without qualification (according to the doctrine of contra proferentum in contracts).
In the case of the state's description of common law, calling blatant misrepresentation of fact an issue of etymology is a spurious argument. It's the same underlying issue here, the attempted redefinition of language as a means to promote atheism.
Ambiguity in language is essential to the legal bait and switch used by the civil state, for example the case against Kim Dotcom. In Dotcom's case the ambiguous term was "copyright violation", where the US meaning depends on the US doctrine of fair use, but the NZ meaning does not, since the US doctrine of fair use is not part of NZ law. The end result of this bait and switch is that evidence is presented which appears to be true, but is actually false within the context of the forum of dispute.
Interestingly enough, the US doctrine of fair use is itself an atheistic doctrine, since it effectively deems acts that are not wrongful by conscience (i.e rightful at equity) as being wrongful acts.
-
Dismal Soyanz, in reply to
Also RadioNZ has a page
Whoever is in charge of their website is doing some good stuff. I liked this.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Radio NZ ... is doing some good stuff. I liked this.
+1
I'll make sure to share that link. -
izogi, in reply to
It was directly linked on the front page until early voting came up.
Excellent, thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for.
-
James Francis, in reply to
Now that is journalism. It should be printed bold and splashed across the front pages of every paper. Of course, it won't.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
No, it’s more about ambiguity in language.
The idea of the oath is not particularly ambiguous. It's not important who it is to. What is important is that you swear it. Then you can get busted for lying under oath. That makes courtrooms places where people fear to be caught lying.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
Whoever is in charge of their website is doing some good stuff. I liked this.
Me too, it's what we need a lot more of and it should be boldly displayed.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
No, it’s more about ambiguity in language.
No, it's not.
For the sake of argument let’s call the early definition a true oath, and a promise that does not call deity to witness, but is still called an oath, a hollow oath.
[......]
the attempted redefinition of language as a means to promote atheism.
"True" vs. "hollow" meaning, attemtped redefinition..... Still the etymological fallacy. Language changes, that's a simple historical fact. The meanings of words change as part of that, as can be seen in the multitudes of definitions listed for each word in dictionaries. The faux amis between English and French are a great example of how the definitions of words can evolve over time in sometimes quite wildly different directions. Calling older definitions of words "true" and newer understandings of the meanings of those words "hollow" then muttering about redefinitions as attempts to promote -isms really is just the etymological fallacy. "Oath" no longer means what you would prefer it to mean, it's that simple. To prevail in your debate with Ben you're going to need a stronger argument.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Language changes, that’s a simple historical fact. The meanings of words change as part of that, as can be seen in the multitudes of definitions listed for each word in dictionaries.
Have been listening to this on long jouneys, fascinating stuff.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Should have said this a while ago, but can we take this to the other thread where it's at least barely relevant.
-
As I've posted on the Dirty Politics thread, if you want to be part of an ad in the Herald demanding a clean up, have a look here
http://www.actionstation.org.nz/support_democracy_letter?utm_campaign=democracy_sign&utm_medium=email&utm_source=actionstation -
Alfie, in reply to
Should have said this a while ago, but can we take this to the other thread where it's at least barely relevant.
Thank God! (Hopefully I'm not blaspheming there). ;-)
-
startswithj, in reply to
Exactly. This is public interest, and also concerns the general need to maintain a fourth estate and a democracy. If 3 news, the NZ Herald and Fairfax are restricted from reporting issues that could be considered to be within the public interest, where does it stop? It is up to the judiciary to maintain a check on the government through ensuring certain media organisations can hold these people accountable. Not only that, the public needs access to the information so that the issues can be addressed.
In this case, the judiciary would be protecting government and political actor interests and therefore are not really upholding standards of a democracy. Additionally, if there are “journalists” that defame and selectively report for personal gain, there should be journalists who can expose this. The media should provide investigative journalism that facilitates public debate.
“The idea of news organisations being forbidden to report on a story everyone knows is there is weird.” So true, and the public needs to know full contexts of situations in order to make social, cultural and political decisions.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
If 3 news, the NZ Herald and Fairfax are restricted from reporting issues that could be considered to be within the public interest, where does it stop?
I could flip the question and ask if you've got any problems with court-ordered name suppression -- a restriction responsible media outlets and bloggers operate under every day of the week. Not everything the public happens to be interested in is a matter of public interest.
-
Sacha, in reply to
If 3 news, the NZ Herald and Fairfax are restricted from reporting issues that could be considered to be within the public interest, where does it stop?
Those outlets are being stifled from publishing by continued legal action and their own corporate caution. Whose interests are served by doing that until after the election? And who is paying Slater’s legal bills?
I recall reading that Hotchin has form for lawyering media into silence, for instance..
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Those outlets are being stifled from publishing by continued legal action and their own corporate caution.
Oh, pardon me if I can't must too many crocodile tears for large media corporations who don't appear to have any problem whatsoever lawyering up and defending themselves against legal action -- which, you know, they're not actually immune from.
And who is paying Slater’s legal bills?
Does that actually matter? I'm sure there's plenty of people hereabouts who'd chip in if it was Nicky Hager taking legal action,
-
Sacha, in reply to
highly relevant to the question of who benefits, wouldn't you agree?
-
Sacha, in reply to
lawyering up and defending themselves against legal action
takes time. that's the tactic.
-
the media have legal approval to publish stories based on information they already have. There's no valid reason to delay.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Their own legal advisors apparently decided it would best serve their interests not to publish anything until proceedings have progressed further.
-
Slater now requesting material held by each media organisation is a first step to injuncting specific stories. They know that.
The identity of Slater's funder/s may influence which stories are the focus of such action..
-
Speaking of a vibrant 4th Estate:
Post your response…
This topic is closed.