Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But the point would be not to excise without comment, but to replace or amend the offending section (sentence, paragraph, article, etc.) with an explicit acknowledgement of why material has had to be removed or amended. As in, the process has to be seen to be working.
-
Southerly: Village People, in reply to JacksonP,
... that's why they're called effigies ...
-
Southerly: Village People, in reply to Sacha,
you don't say :?)
-
One could say that Hager is a regular producer of investigative books :-)
Possibly a more accurate statement of intent behind this condition could be that "the information disclosed is expected to be published within a reasonable timeframe" ... and possibly also "the informant should be informed in advance of the publication date". ("Regular publication" facilitates both of those conditions, but it's not really a logically necessary feature.)
For a book, that "reasonable timeframe" could be of the order of years rather than days. -
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Stephen Judd,
I said “independent”, not “government-appointed”.
(Equally, you wouldn’t necessarily want a media body having sole control over who could come in off the streets, either.)
A body composition that might work fairly well for decisions on any given event would be one representative for each of: (old-media producer); (new-media producer); (old-media consumer); (new-media consumer). Except that all of those lines are becoming increasingly blurred… -
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
One right of recognised media is to be present observing and taking notes of such events as, e.g., parliamentary debates.
(Assumption: space is limited at such events, and so not everyone who could conceivably have an interest can physically be present. Further assumption: one purpose is to facilitate access to the maximum possible number of potentially interested parties, and live feeds, etc, would not allow sufficiently equitable access.)
The concomitant duty of the media would be to represent the events observed as accurately and objectively as possible, to the widest possible audience.
The immediate problems, once the pool of potential individuals is expanded – as it should be – beyond recognised media outlets of long standing to J. Random Scribbler, are that it is not possible to decide in advance if (or, to what extent) a given individual will discharge that duty, and nor would it be desirable if government officials were to have sole discretion as to which individuals are permitted to be present at government events (or similarly for any event impacting on the public). So two principles need to be in place (as they pretty much are for existing media):
(i) in principle, everyone wanting to be present as journalists should be assumed to have the intention to legitimately fulfil journalistic duties – until some body of contrary evidence is available;
(ii) judgements of such evidence (potentially leading to revocation of journalistic rights) should be made by an independent referee. -
eek out a living
there's them rock-stadium yelps again.
-
This TAL radio documentary on the Eurozone crisis ought to be required listening.
-
analogue being a pretentious, self-absorbed prick
So that’s what it’s called when some character is talking through their ass.
-
Southerly: Village People, in reply to Sacha,
insurance against theft was unobtainable. WTF
it’s pretty hard for them to justify that one, surely.* points to the (government-sanctioned) corporate looting *
… looking at the likely premium levels, it could get recursive, too.