Posts by James W
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
but how is the headline or anything else about the story you linked to racist?
Hey, I never said it was racist. I implied it was racist. Just like the article implies something by stating that thousands of people will miss out if 'the Maoris' get the rights to broadcast the World Cup. I really don’t think the Herald would’ve used that angle if it was TVNZ doing the exact same thing. Why not use the money angle like Russell? Why is it all about who misses out because of more Maori hand-outs (“tax-payer funded”, “public money”)? It really is the least-relevant part of the story, and they chose to use it as a headline on the front page, in my view, simply because they knew it would rile their base. The Herald has a history of front-page race-baiting like this.
-
If a French language channel had won the rights I'd be more worried - and so would you.
And if we lived in France, I'd give a shit.
Andre, you've gone from "5 to 10% of the coverage" being in te reo to "0.004% of us speak Maori yet our biggest sporting event is going to be broadcast using the language" to now comparing it to being in French. Honestly, what are you afraid of?
-
Russell's not racist - his issue is where the money's coming from, which is fair enough. The Herald's choice of headline, however, is something else.
-
Laws must be the least self-aware person I've ever come across. Apart from calling putting the 'h' in Wanganui "racist", there's that Radio Live ad where he says something like "Unfortunately, this is someone who thinks we should only listen to their opinion because they're on TV."
It's like he read 1984 and went "this doublethink thing is a great idea!"
-
I'm amazed (but not surprised) that the media is turning even this into a 'he says, she says' debate. One News last night talked about "neither side backing down" and had Laws going on about how "angry" the kids' letters were. For fuck's sake: THEY'RE CHILDREN. There isn't a "side" to take here. It doesn't matter what they wrote. His response would be inappropriate even if they sent him of a picture with his head stuck up his ass (wouldn't be inaccurate, either).
-
I'm actually wondering if there's something seriously wrong with him.
Narcissistic personality disorder?
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (megalomania)
3. Believes they are "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes -
Whenever I get called to do a survey I always say yes, because I know how influential they are, especially political ones. Considering how many people refuse or hang up (or give all 5s), I reckon my real answers probably have quite a bit of sway over the final result.
-
So you did. Part two of this Editing The Herald post, wasn't it?
Yes.
-
Apropos McCroskie, I'd like to know why the hell he gets so much coverage.
I asked the Herald exactly this question, how a one-man organisation gets into their paper so often, and is always called "Family First director Bob McCroskie". Their Social Issues reporter replied, saying he agreed McCroskie was a "one-man lobby group" but said it was democracy in action for him to have his voice heard, and suggested I do the same.
Of course, this doesn't explain why he's referred to as a director of a non-existent body, but I assume it's to lend credence to the reporter's stories as much as to McCroskie. "Some Guy Who Keeps Sending Us Press Releases Bob McCroskie" doesn't have as much authenticity.
It's a mixture of tight deadlines leading to reporters needing a quick rent-a-quote from both "sides", and the useless 'he says she says' reporting technique the media seems to love, that leads to people like McCroskie, Cameron Brewer, Garth McVicar et al. getting a disproportionate amount of press.
-
Come on. This isn't an incredibly rare event. Bill English came out not all that long ago and said they weren't going to be cutting taxes. He even suggested they might raise some taxes. etc.
The difference is I don't believe National ever really intended to keep to its tax cut election promises, so that just makes that move cynical and hypocritical.