Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, goody, is it the point where we get to discuss postmodernism as a cultural condition in arts and society vs. postmodernism as an attitude to culture and knowledge?
I think so. Although I tend to think of it as practical postmodernism rather than theoretical ...
Hey, I'm as up for discussing the creation of meaning as the next guy. I just don't understand why they have to write so badly and have such narrow and intransigent politics.
I generally collapse and pretend to be dead at right about this time.
Somebody get the man an ambulance!
-
Forbes-Coates v2.0 release notes: largely unchanged from v1.0, but now available on Twitter, Facebook, and RSS.
That was so postmodern.
-
Hi Judy,
Ah, but this assumes that Key and English are playing for the same team. Insider gossip suggests that the divide is as great as ever between the offices of the PM and Deputy PM. What better way to keep your face and name in the public eye than to constantly and gently undermine your leader?
You have to wonder. It does puzzle me that the gallery wouldn't be writing about it already, though. The Blair-Brown template is right there.
I've heard more than once from other journalists that English isn't a believer on the broadband project.
-
I can never work which is the more postmodern: hip hop or house? Or is it mash-up these days?
-
"Though if we're talking about post-modernism in the media then there is a bit of analysis on TV about that. The Daily Show does it fairly often."
That's hilarious. You're not deliberately trying to get Giovanni's blood pressure up are you?
See:
Jon Stewart: the prototype postmodern news anchor
From The PoMo Blog, no less.
-
Sacha, agreed on the outsourcing issue. When I first joined the Listener, there was a chief sub and a deputy editor -- Tom McWilliams and Geoff Chapple -- who helped steer me and other new writers. Tom, especially, was legendary for his patient tutoring.
Tom: best sub ever. And sadly, not treated well at the end of his career.
Listener subs in general could be relied on to handle copy intelligently when I was writing for the magazine -- although it was always flattering to see a column go through without a mark on it.
But there were twice as many on staff then producing a magazine that's the same size as today, and most of the subs have gone.
There's been some better news on that front very recently ...
-
North Harbour stadium could be made to work well with a range of noise-insulatable sites surounding a central spot for a main stage. But as others have said security would be the issue, but not impossible.
It's not my favourite venue, but it probably is the next practical choice after Mt Smart.
-
An honest argument, no. The kind of deeply dishonest and puerile invective ("stop with the Iraq war aready! It's so boooring!") that we have come to expect from our esteemed editorialists and columnists? Not so much.
Curiously enough, the Herald has always been anti-Iraq war.
I remember when in 2003, Roy Greenslade wrote a fulminating piece for The Guardian alleging that Murdoch was instructing his papers to fall into a pro-war line. I was on Mediawatch at the time, and this was the script based on my examination of his claims:
In Monday's edition of The Guardian, columnist Roy Greenslade alleged that Rupert Murdoch had instructed the editors of his 175 newspapers around the world - from the Times, to the Australian and the New York Post - that their editorial stance should support war in Iraq.
After conducting what he said was an "exhaustive survey" of Murdoch's highest-selling and most influential papers, Greenslade said it was clear to him that all were "singing from the same hymn sheet". Some were softer than others, he said, but: "Their master's voice has never been questioned."
The malign proprietorial influence extended even to these shores, where, he said, "Murdoch's papers are eager to push readers and politicians towards belligerence." He quoted an editorial in Wellington's Dominion Post, which argued against what it described as the "charade" of "appeasement".
So does the evidence here support Greenslade's theory? No. We conducted our own, somewhat exhaustive, survey of editorials in New Zealand newspapers published by INL, in which Murdoch's News Limited has a 49 per cent stake. We concluded that editors were taking their own counsel, rather than that of Mr Murdoch.
By far the most hawkish of the INL papers has been The Press in Christchurch, which this week said the United Nations faced irrelevance if it did not opt for military action. The Dominion Post has been more circumspect and the Waikato Times and Sunday Star Times have been doubters.
The reality didn't fit the picture Greenslade drew.
-
In 1999/2000, or after starting a fourth term?
At any time, I'd think. There would be talk of daylight opening up between them, etc ...
Also, Sarah Palin's ethics invesigation, news, I suppose. Sarah Palin's family is not news, but gossip
Given the laborious construction of the family identity for the purposes of last year's election, it's interesting to see it spin apart like this.
-
Nope. This one from Joseph Young. Firmly in the comments era. (Had to find it with Google!).
Ah, that one. It gets hard to remember. I certainly wasn't a believer in Blair, but it was useful to to present an energetic argument against what was the dominant belief in the Public Address community.
Some people liked it, some people hated it. But Joseph (who I've never met) was/is an educated young man. Surely it doesn't hurt anyone to read an argument that is in conflict with their own perspective?
This is what troubles me with Phelan's paper (and for that matter, Simmons' book): the absolute assumption of rectitude. The neoliberals feel the same way about their own ideas -- should we just believe them too?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 … 2279 Older→ First