Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I won't concede however that the Herald's activities are without bias and depending on your ideology, without menace in the political domain.
I certainly hope you won't. Just as I don't think Colin -- who I have a lot od respect for, BTW -- is exactly a disinterested by-stander, or that Fairfax New Zealand occupies any part of the ethical high horse other than its arse.
I just don't define 'bias' as 'anything I don't happen to agree with'. Here's where my ideological filter lies: If politicians don't like being disagreed with, they're in the wrong line of work.
For heaven's sake, for the last year our host has given me three minutes a week to editorialise, with some very basic (and totally reasonable) restrictions regarding broadcast standards. If anyone believes I have breeched those standards, Radio Live is obliged to follow the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice and the relevant requirements of Parts I to III of Broadcasting Act 1989.
Politicians have exactly same ability to lay a formal complaint as anyone else -- no more, but certainly no less.
I'd close with three observations:
1) Embarrassing or Irritating Politicians is not considered grounds for a formal complaint.
2) I've not noticed Helen Clark ever being short of an opportunity to lash media outlets that raise her ire -- because one thing you can rely on is that no media outlet will pass up the opportunity to head schedenfreude on the competition. And as Teddy Roosevelt famously pointed out, high political office is one hell of a bully pulpit.
3) And, finally, I'm not the first person to note that there sure seems to be a correlation between those Parliamentarians who bitch the loudest about media bias aren't terribly scrupulous about smearing others from behind the skirts of parliamentary privilege. And how often have we seen a piece of sin-sational sleaze get front page treatment, leading every radio and TV bulletin, because media outlets are covered by qualified privilege...
... but the qualification, when the scandal turns out to be as substantial as cotton candy in a monsoon,
-
I feel very confident indeed in saying that had the shoe been on the other foot, DPF and his readers would be going absolutely fscking mental right about now.
Sure, and I think we've both tired and failed to have a fact-based, civil exchange with the likes of D4J or Redbaiter. Not really the people I want to use as a baseline for reasoned discourse. :)
If The Herald does have a bias, it doesn't seem to be political in nature but an assumption that its readers are a pack of chimps with ADHD and early onset Altzheimers. I'm a damn sight more worried about the kind of junk science and basic scientific illiteracy displayed in stories headlined "anti-depressants don't work" than Colin Espiner, Andrew Little and Michael Cullen stirring shit for political ends.
I would have thought a more accurate analysis of the Herald's editorial stance would include the selection, position and prominence of stories as well as editorials.
Which in the end may prove little more than the eternal pertinence of the old saw "if it bleeds it leads, if it's dead its read -- especially if there's suitably grotesque pictures to hand".
Tame Bitch? Isn't that Tame Iti's drag name?
Not if I get there first. :)
Craig: This is about the Herald not about Cullen.
61stcolumn: Sorry, but when Cullen has gotten endless media play asserting that Key tried to get a journo sacked -- an allegation I actually take seriously -- I think it's quite legitimate to ask whether its true. As all parties involved have denied Cullen's claim, I also have to say its equally legitimate to ask whether he was misinformed (and by who) or whether he was just making shit up.
Or do we have a sliding scale of ethics for politicians now?
Gosh Craig, you claim to not be privvy to the National party lines sheet, and yet you have the "they must be conspiracists" line down pat..
But you make it so easy, Snowy.
-
You will also notice DPF collecting stats for "media bias". Now there's an old canard about to rear its ugly head
And on a second read, you either totally misread the comment or (again) are just making shit up.
Here's what DPF actually wrote.
Colin you said:
“That’d be the same APN whose Herald newspaper ran a full-frontal attack on Labour last year over its Electoral Finance Act and whose editorials haven’t had a good word to say about the Government in over a year.”
That is an extraordinarily bold claim to make, and extremely serious attack on the ethics and neutrality of the Herald - claiming not a single good word in an editorial in over a year.
You may want to consider that the Herald actually counted up their “political” editorials in 2007 and found:
# Labour 18 positive, five neutral, 20 negative
# National five positive, six neutral, five negativeSo either:
1) You are totally wrong in your assertion
2) The Herald lied in its editorial of 27 Dec 2007 when it said there had been 18 editorials in 2007 supporting the Government or a Government policy.Now I haven’t gone back through all 250 Heralds in 2007 to verify their claim. I presume you have? They claim they praised:
“Policies or actions of the Government which we endorsed included its KiwiSaver policy, Michael Cullen’s courage in seeking new ways to redirect investment away from a property boom, the new immigration law, its sustainability and carbon emissions trading proposals, the changes to NCEA, the crackdown on real estate issues, using school tuckshops to target obesity, the October Cabinet reshuffle, sanctions against Fiji, the Royal Commission on Auckland, help for Kiwi companies setting up overseas, the separation of Telecom, the new school curriculum, and Helen Clark’s visit to Washington.”
Presumably they just invented these editorials, and were hoping no one would check back to see if they actually printed them.
It seems to me that Colin made a rather dopey assertion (and one often repeated around here) that DPF - and The Herald itself -- were perfectly entitled to respond to. Then again, I don't really see the point of trying to rationally engage with people in the grip of a conspiracy theory.
-
Craig, that would be news if RNZ offered a retraction, sorry, correction. People are always contacting media organisations to offer "clarification" and further comment.
No, Don, it's news because shareholding ministers in state-owned broadcasters don't ring the chief executive to bitch about interviews they don't like. Radio New Zealand and TVNZ are subject to the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, and have a process for complaints that is fully compliant. You'd think Mr. Maharey would be well aware of that.
And I'll ask this question again: Will Doctor Cullen tell us where he got the impression that Key tried to get the journalist concerned fired, a charge both the journalist and editor concerned have refuted.
Cullen was either misinformed (and we deserve to know who by) or was just making shit up. Shonky Mike?
-
You will also notice DPF collecting stats for "media bias". Now there's an old canard about to rear its ugly head
Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Ms. Kettle you have so much in common. And with all due disrespect to Colin, he gets rather spiky when accused of being the tame bitch of either National or Labour -- or any aspersions being cast on the editorial independence of The Press.
Perhaps any further posts of this nature could be headed with this disclosure. The Press is owned by Fairfax New Zealand, which happens to be a direct competitior of APN, which owns The New Zealand Herald. Read into that what you will.
-
And, given that no one is saying the transcript is actually wrong, an apparently superfluous one. Personally, I'd love to know exactly who has been saying what to whom …
Personally, I'd love to know who told Cullen that "Key had tried to bully the newspaper into sacking the reporter" -- which is apparently something of a surprise to the reporter and editor concerned. If Cullen wants to call John Key a liar, it might help if he had a slightly closer relationship with the truth himself. As Tom Stoppard has one of his characters say, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts." Especially when the people having their professional and personal integrity attacked are in no position to respond promptly and in kind.
And good on Audrey for pointing this out:
There wouldn't be a journalist or news outlet in the country that has not been lobbied by politicians about a story they have taken exception to. Labour does it too.
I have it on very good authority that Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey rang the chief executive of Radio New Zealand (yes, management) last year because he was so pissed off at an interview conducted by Sean Plunket.
Indeed, and isn't it funny how Andrew Little had nothing to say about that?
-
funny, i just did a catch up of the last three episodes of Stargate Atlantis (the wifey loves it, you must understand......atlantis is better than SG1....not sure that I would recomend to anyone though) . and there it was, three characters stuck in a room. cue tension, bonding, development.
Ah, that wonderful stand-by of sci-fi television the 'bottle show' -- one set, as few actors as possible, no FX to speak of and put the money you save elsewhere without resorting to that kiss of death... the clip show.
I must admit I've never really warmed to Stargate: Atlantis, mostly because I spend way too much thinking "they did this on SG1 four or five years back, and did it so much better." An fatigue, d while I do think the last three seasons of SG1 were definitely suffering from *cough* creative fatigue, my geek heart melts at the sight of Farscape alumni Ben Browder and Claudia Black. And the 200th episode -- imaginatively titled __200__, took the opportunity to send up itself, and every SF cliche you could think of, with malicious glee.
Or is that the plot for series 5, they discover that they are really toaster experiment.
Sadly, season four is it and if even a fraction of the spoiler/speculation on the fan boards is accurate, Ron Moore makes the Shortland Street Serial Killer look like a wussie. And apparently both the Cylons and Colonials do find Earth, and have a very good reason to wish they hadn't. Be careful what you wish for, because the universe will give it to you. Hard:)
Hmmm....ok....absolutely.... on my life... I swear I saw BSG series 3 box set at whitcolls, while I was doing my christmas shopping. I was going to get it, but I had already spend far too much on myself and thought it would be out at the video store.
I'm still pissed that JB Hi-Fi are selling a box set of the mini-series and seasons 1-3 for $119.99. Let's just say I thought the bare-bones S3 box was over-priced, which won't stop be paying full list for Razor when it comes out.
-
I think I can see why he wants to avoid conceding that point.
So can I, but can see the S-G is eventually going to have get a spine implant and assert that suppression orders exist for damn good reasons and hacks (and the Police officers who love leaking to them) are going to have to do a bit better than squeaking 'public interest'. I might be hopelessly naive, but I don't think the whole Guerrillas in the Mist saga was a red letter day for the media in this country. Having their collective noses rubbed in sight of Iti being insufferably pleased with himself would do them some bloody good.
-
He could have been clearer, couldn't he?
I'd personally like Cullen to stop being so fraking cute, and tell us exactly what the Government considers "strategic infrastructure".
Talking of political management, I see APN is curtailing freedom of speech of one of its publications.
And cute link to Colin Espiner, who I guess is an entirely disinterested party. I'm still wondering why the Dominion Post hasn't been charged with contempt over the publication of the so-called 'terrorism files'. Then again, I'm one of these cranks who actually thinks a fair trial and the rule of law is slightly more important than Fairfax NZ's bottom line.
-
A popular vote that included many Republican and independent voters that turned up on the day to vote for Obama. That's the rules and Obama benefits from that particular anomaly.
What data I've seen pretty clearly suggests that in Texas the Republicans and independents split fairly evenly -- and I wonder how many of those Republicans are dittoheads who've fallen for Rush Limbaugh's deliriously valentines to Clinton. I don't understand why Obama doesn't go for the gut and run ads with every Clinton mash note they can find from the likes of Limbaugh, Hewett and Coulter.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 … 1235 Older→ First