Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Now tell me again how useless blogs are ...
Well some blogs are thoroughly useless. Just as (sorry Vernon and Judy) there are any number of newspapers and academic papers I wouldn't wipe my arse with, for fear of catching stupid cooties.
To be fair, I can get over my knee-jerk hostility to the EPMU and acknowledge there's some interesting and provocative food for thought coming out of the Journalism Matters conference. But the air of navel-gazing self-pity about how the evil bloggers are the barbarians at the gate isn't it. I'm personally quite thankful that Russell and the likes of Ben Goldacre are fisking the arse off junk science and innumeracy disguised as journalism. If media outlets don't consider basic scientific and statistical literacy to be an essential skill set in the contemporary newsroom, I'm quite happy for informed bloggers to fill the gap.
-
There are some unhelpful generalisations there.
Commendable understatement there, Russell. If I wanted to respond in kind, I could point to 'Asian Angst', 'Operation Leaf', John Manukia, and ask how many times has the Herald on Sunday had to retract stories about Sharon Shipton? When it comes to being "fundamentally contemptuous of journalism", I'd respectfully suggest scapegoating bloggers is dodging the issue.
I was also surprised that Audrey Young seems to have been given quite a hard time over her foray into blogging.
Well, certainly. I found Judy McGregor particularly bizarre on that score. Sure, I really think Audrey and John Key need to bury the hatchet - preferably not in each other's heads - but let's be quite blunt. I don't blame Audrey for taking very strong exception to, basically, being accused of just making shit up. That's not a trivial charge, in my book - just as I'm sure McGregor would respond strongly to public claims that she falsified research data or distorted another academics work in a paper.
-
First, Graeme, thanks to you and your colleagues at COG for the sterling work - don't agree with all of your conclusions, but you're adding value to the debate. It's certainly going to clarify and focus some aspects of my submission.
The really sad thing about this bill is that it was an opportunity to put forward a comprehensive and thoughtful package of reforms that enjoyed broad support across the political spectrum, both inside and outside Parliament.
Instead, and I don't think it's OTT or overly cynical to say this, it was jacked by people who think they nearly had the last election 'stolen' from them and it's time to settle some scores.
Feh... I know it's never going to happen, but I'd like this bill to be withdrawn and see Parliament actually take the integrity of our elections seriously.
-
It's a question of priorities: if you also "heartily approve" of full, timely investigation of alleged burglaries and/or email thefts ... and if it's not forthcoming, then it's sensible enough to wonder what else the Police are up to.
Especially when a certain telco-related Cabinet document of *cough* extreme political sensitivity found its way into the public domain, an investigation involving the DPMC, State Services Commission and (ultimately) Police was done and dusted with quite admirable dispatch.
-
Che:
Pour enough alcohol down my neck and there's nothing I won't believe - but I really don't know any Mark Felt or G. Gordon Libby wannabes. Surely, even gut-punching, blood on the celing rat-bastardry has limits?
Then again, perhaps all I've proved is that I'm an insufferably naive and sentimental prig who doesn't get invited to the right parties. (Just as well, because thigh-high waders and a butcher's apron aren't a good look for me.) :)
-
And Danyl wrote:
I also note that Diane Foremans apartment was broken into the night before the election. If any political dynamite was discovered then it would have been absolutely useless to Brash's political enemies...
OK,it just hit me how absurd that statement is. You've got some hair wedged so far up your arse about Don Brash you (supposedly) tossed his alleged mistresses' apartment once, maybe even leaked his mail to Nicky fricking Hagar and God only knows what else... and the minor technicality of a general election gets in your way? Come on, Danyl, you're just not getting into the spirit of things. :)
-
And just as an FYI, I don't really want to see stolen letters and trashing people's homes becoming part of the cut and thrust of politics in this country, full stop. On one level, I don't really care how 'close to home' it is - whether it's some horrible lefty plot or National infighting gone toxic - I want to see the people responsible exposed and punished to the full extend of the law.
-
Nicky Hager was adamant that there was no stealing or hacking of e-mails.
Well, he would say that wouldn't he? I don't know about anyone else, but it sure took some of the gloss off the Watergate myth when 'Deep Throat' outed himself - and turned out to be Mark Felt, a rather squalid Hoover henchman who had a very particular grudge against Nixon, who passed him over as FBI Director following Hoover's death.
The point is that someone who clearly knows (or suspects) more than she's telling, is saying that whatever did happen was friendly fire.
Don't know if I'd read too much into that either. I suspect both Foreman and McMannus are smart enough to know that 'suspicions' are a pretty risky defence in defamation law. If a newspaper even implied that I was some kind of Kiwi G. Gordon Liddy, you bet your arse I'd be setting loose the dogs of law - and I'm pretty sure there are a few folks on both sides of the political fence who would do the same.
-
Does anyone else think banning Ron was a bit harsh?
Not really - but that's all somewhat beside the point. This is Russell's patch of virtual real estate, he's liable for the contents and has been pretty clear about the tone he wants to set (including making this a safe zone for women to participate in), and AFAIC he has the absolute right to exercise editorial control here as he sees fit. (And I certainly wish certain other bloggers would tell their resident hysterics to either calm down or piss off.)
Even though 99% of people agree with the conviction, does that mean we shouldn't hear from anyone opposed to it?
Certainly not, and I would have been banned long ago if Russell was a freak for 'crushing dissent'. :) But in the end, you've got to make a judgement call whether some people are adding value to the conversation or killing it. You mileage may vary, but again it's RB's call to make here.
-
Not having heard this week's 180 Seconds when you recorded it, that post has me salivating for the full version.
Well, you might be disappointed - unlike most political pundits, having a microphone in my face tends to be a calming influence. :)
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 … 1235 Older→ First