Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
If this report is true, then the HoS interview is starting to look very, very bad. Obscene, you might say.
Obscene enough to warrant a complaint to the press council ?
Apart from the obvious self serving slant and complete lack of any real answers (how could there be without any real questions?)..... the fact that the "interview" was done by the guy who offered PR advice to help write the "mea-culpa" as poor as it was, is surely some sort of breach of ethics?
Surely it should have been published with some sort of disclosure statement? It just wasnt journalism, but was presented as such...
-
At Carisbrook on Saturday two guys carried a sign in front of our stand trying to gee up the crowd in support. The sign read "Good on ya, Veitchy!".
It doesn't surprise me unfortunately but, sadly, maybe the lack of support does a bit.
Something that has inerested me in all the verbiage about this is the unconscious reflection of the underlying attitudes to women that our society still has. I think it's wonderful that we live in a time and place where we're even contemplating this stuff and not taking it for granted but we clearly still have a ways to go.
Back when I did Sociology of gender mumble mumble years ago there was a section on language that introduced the notion to me that the way we use language reglects how women are seen and their real situation in society. I think some of the stuff that has been said bears thinking about.
I think it was Craig who touched on it the other day (apologies if wrong correspondent). He was taken to task for using "cunt" as a perjorative about Vietch. He responded with an apology and a comment that "it was a nasty word for a beautiful thing" or something like that." My understanding is that it was actually the beautiful word for the beautiful thing at one time (cf Lady Chatterly's Lover) but has come to be a horrible word because people use references to things female in the majority of put down words. Bitch, tit etc. The ones about men tend to refer to their mother hence the ever popular "mother"f"er and son of a bitch. Some things haven't changed much in mumble mumble years.
In a commentary today Jane Bowron reflects her dislike of what a commentator was saying by reference to her appearance. Don't know how to link but it's on "Stuff" -
Even more bizarre was Wednesday night's Close Up panel discussion on the Veitch crisis with, of all people, PR personality Michelle Boag, who, looking like a boiled yellow and black licorice allsort,
The same thing happened here to Bridget Saunders with it being questioned whether she had some kind of severe facial disorder or was just plain ugly. There has been a lot of foul stuff said by men but I don't recall the reponse to it including derogatory remarks about their appearance.
Something similar happened on another thread here. Russell described the Naked News as "embarrassing" and commented that the readers swollen, bruised breasts were ugly anyway. Taken to task by an unwitting poster who didn't realise he had written it, Russell replied that because it was in the context of the Naked News it was fine to comment on her breasts. The program would be less embarrassing in quality if the reader's breasts were to his taste? She asked for it because she was semi naked on TV?
This is despite Russell clearly striving to be one of the "good guys" in terms of his views and words that we regularly see here, Most of this stuff is unconscious. The interesting thing was that the poster immediately backed down and even apologised for questioning Russell. To me it was a very interesting display of perceived power. No one else picked him up on it, the only person who did, didn't know she was talking about him. Russell has a lot of power anfd people want him to like them.
While we have a society that is still judging the credibility of women on what they look like instead of what they do and who they are we still have the seeds for abuse. To me it is like the "zero tolerance" thing. You actually have to start with the small things that seem too small to be really relevant but that provide the growth medium for the more visible ugly stuff on top. Apologies for the long post.
-
That's a stunning comment, Jill. Thank you.
-
If it were possible for me to despise and loathe paul holmes any more than I already do, that interview certainly provided the justification.
I find it beyond belief that there is anyone who can bring themselves to support veitch, even in the abstract, 'fair trial, justice is blind' sense, without recourse to rubber gloves and a clothes peg.
But there appear to be significant numbers of people willing to swallow this mea culpa shit barrel, hawser and bent steel shaft.
With a bit of luck, holmes will offer veitch a joyride in his plane
to take his mind off his problems. -
You're welcome Deborah. Thanks.
-
thanx jill for raising those issues. i know that many of us have been trying to work on those small things you speak of, but these days you get knocked down for "political correctness gone mad". i'd love to hear your thoughts on those who trivialise the efforts for incremental change in that way.
-
Jill I agree about your examples of Michelle Boag and even Bridget Saunders, but when someone like Lisa Lewis is very actively promoting her artificially inflated breasts as a key part of her place in the world it gets more complex. Considering her a victim would be a mistake.
Have never watched Naked News but I remember reading that comment from Russell - and I interpreted it at the time as an expression of sympathy for imagined discomfort from her swollen "assets" (money generating as they are). I won't speculate on the source of Russell's understanding of what that might fell like.
To me, the big picture certainly is woven from the smallest utterances but sometimes a cigar is also just a cigar. Some things are more defensible than others, and some never are (and there we agree on zero tolerance) - in case people think I'm being inconsistent from my position on Veitch.
-
Obscene enough to warrant a complaint to the press council ?
Go for it, Fletcher. I'm sure the cross ownership raises things to another level of murkiness. I have always regarded Homes as a poor journalist, but whoever editorially approved this smarmy crap also deserves to be held accountable.
-
3410,
Holmes interview
Yep, that was one disgusting performance from Holmes. Someone in the Herald's "Your Views Story" (what a grammatical disaster that title is!) asks whether Holmes might be so fawningly supportive if the woman involved was Millie, and not some non-media-star nobody? The answer is obvious, and Holmes is a vile hypocrite.
While I'm at it, the Herald should've charged standard advertising rates for that so-called "interview". Poor form.
As for Vietch, what can you say? I can't help but feel sorry for him, in a way, he being now the living embodiment of Tragedy (in the Shakesperian, if not quite the Aristotelian, sense). That said, it's time for him to accept that, for now, his career is toast, and make a statement to the Police.
Yes, I feel very sorry for what Miss Dunne-Powell has endured. I'd hope that that would go with saying, but just in case...
-
Something similar happened on another thread here. Russell described the Naked News as "embarrassing" and commented that the readers swollen, bruised breasts were ugly anyway. Taken to task by an unwitting poster who didn't realise he had written it, Russell replied that because it was in the context of the Naked News it was fine to comment on her breasts. The program would be less embarrassing in quality if the reader's breasts were to his taste? She asked for it because she was semi naked on TV?
I think that's really, really unfair. It's up to you if you want to see a "perceived power" relationship in the exchange, but someone (Jackie?) queried it -- on the basis of a quote separated from the main post --and I explained the context.
I watched the bulletin so I'd know what we were talking about on Media7.
The entire point of Naked Newsflash is that Lisa Lewis's breasts are exposed. At various times, they are even subject to close-ups. There is no other rationale for watching -- the script is dire and she can't read with any expression. My response was that her surgically enlarged breasts looked terribly sore and actually unattractive -- which is ironic, given that their perceived attractiveness is the ostensible point of the show.
You have every right here to take issue with that, but I really do find your characterisation of it, and particularly the assumption that I'd exercised some undue power in simply clarifying the context, both extreme and unfair.
-
which is ironic, given that their perceived attractiveness is the ostensible point of the show
That's certainly how I read what Russell said at the time. However, there are always broader power relationships involved despite intent or outcome, and Russell is no more a passive participant in this forum than Lewis is in hers.
-
However, there are always broader power relationships involved despite intent or outcome
Specifically?
-
because people use references to things female in the majority of put down words. Bitch, tit etc. The ones about men tend to refer to their mother hence the ever popular "mother"f"er and son of a bitch. Some things haven't changed much in mumble mumble years.
Whereas cock, dickhead, bollocks, balls, etc are all compliments, right? Would it not be possible to consider, just for a minute, that it's the sexual element that makes 'cunt' a put-down, not the gender one?
-
So then, is it not OK to point out that Veitch is short?
Because quite a few people have done that, even on here I think.
-
men, women, owner, contributor, consumer, etc
-
Giovanni, I guess I'm saying nothing happens in a vacuum and the context always includes power dimensions like gender and corporate control.
-
Different words for men and women - an old analysis, but a goody. I have a couple of post up about it on my blog.
Here's Dale Spender's analysis
and here's the research she based her analysis on, by Julia P Stanley.
No apologies for linking to my own blog - this is directly relevant to the discussion.
-
That's certainly how I read what Russell said at the time. However, there are always broader power relationships involved despite intent or outcome, and Russell is no more a passive participant in this forum than Lewis is in hers.
I'm a very active participant: it's my house, basically. I'm responsible for it -- legally, financially, ethically -- and it takes quite a lot of time and emotional energy.
Jill is free to take issue -- that's the point of a discussion -- but to come in and say that I exercised some undue "power" in that thread is objectionable.
Anyway, I went and found the original exchange.
It was Julie who thought the reference was from a deleted comment. I could have left it, but I thought I should point out it was me:
__I'm assuming there has been some moderation here, as I can't seem to find the original irrelevant comment about someone's breasts? Good job that moderator!__
Actually, that was me in the original post, referring to Lisa Lewis's breasts, them being the point of Alt TV's Naked Newsflash.
To which Julie replied:
Oops, my bad Russell, thanks for the correction. For once it was relevant to be talking about someone's boobs! :-) Although as I'm currently breast-feeding your assertion that they looked sore did rather pique my interest...
I just can't square that with Jill's comment that "Russell is clearly striving to be one of the 'good guys' in terms of his views and words that we regularly see here," but implying that I'd given myself away and slapped down the person who challenged me. It's a tricky enough job running this place without being accused of that.
-
men, women, owner, contributor, consumer, etc
That's still mighty vague. Specifically, in this case, what's the interplay of those positions?
Whereas cock, dickhead, bollocks, balls, etc are all compliments, right? Would it not be possible to consider, just for a minute, that it's the sexual element that makes 'cunt' a put-down, not the gender one?
Agreed, although being a dick is not quite as bad as being a cunt, is it? And screwing somebody means getting your way, whereas getting screwed quite the opposite.
-
And screwing somebody means getting your way, whereas getting screwed quite the opposite.
giovanni, that sounds like you're implying that women get screwed, and men screw. That women are passive sexually. That's not really an idea I can get on board with. In a lesbian relationship, who's doing the screwing.
although being a dick is not quite as bad as being a cunt
Agreed. Being a pussy isn't as bad as being a cunt, either.
Once again, discourse doing wonders for Russell's google hits...
-
Giovanni, sorry for starting something when I have to leave for a while, but I'm confident that others can answer that.
-
And that they have started doing so already, should I say...
-
And Russell I respect your position and want to reassure you that I'm not having a go.
-
giovanni, that sounds like you're implying that women get screwed, and men screw. That women are passive sexually. That's not really an idea I can get on board with. In a lesbian relationship, who's doing the screwing.
Actually, I have to say that the coarsest conversation I've had all year was with a fiftysomething lesbian about getting a "wide on". I think i blushed a little :-)
-
And Russell I respect your position and want to reassure you that I'm not having a go.
Of course. And we've already seen a few times that this is a thread where emotions might be heightened. If Jill's still here, I'm not actually having a go at her: just objecting on my own behalf.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.