Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: So who exactly placed conditions…, in reply to chris,
Mediaworks
*NZME.
-
Polity: So who exactly placed conditions…, in reply to linger,
Well spotted. That took 30 minutes tops. Now if only you worked for the Herald they’d have been able to spin the proposal by spinning the actual proposal with a day and a half to spare.
-
Hard News: A better thing to believe in, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Given the limited options presented by it being broadcast it on TV1, TV3, Maori TV, and Sky, accounting for all the stops pulled in terms of establishing Party Central and factoring in that it was a New Zealand ‘event’, I’d favour the latter appraisal.
-
Labour’s proposed referendum
It seems clear enough to me, in the accompanying article hosted by Mediaworks’ Newstalk ZB on the 15th September 2015 Andrew Little is quoted as saying:
if the answer was no, then the money set aside for the 2nd referendum won’t be spent.
If it’s yes, then the winner of the five designs will go up against the current flag early next year.
On the 17th of September Mediaworks’ NZ Herald deputy political editor Claire Trevett briefly outlined the situation up to that point:
Little’s response was that Labour would support it, but only if Key also changed the order of the referendums so voters were first asked whether the flag should change. This time round, he could be certain Key would never accept that condition.
It remains unclear whether the Herald deputy political editor doesn’t understand the proposed referendum as reported by Newstalk ZB or has intentionally obfuscated.
As stated above I complained to the press council about the misrepresentation as I saw it in these two paragraphs the Herald’s September 18th editorial:
Labour would agree, he said, if the first referendum included the question: “Do you want to change the flag, yes or no?”. This proposition became tiresome long ago. People cannot sensibly consider a change of this kind without knowing what the alternative would be. We probably would not have adopted MMP if the 1992 referendum had asked, do you want to change the electoral system? Several different systems were under public discussion at that time and all had their advocates.
But many who voted for MMP, or another new system, might have voted for the status quo in fear of a change to one of the systems they did not like. A referendum without a known alternative is biased to the status quo and those who call for one know it. The call is perfectly understandable from the likes of the RSA which wants to keep the existing flag regardless of alternatives on offer. It declared its position before any alternatives were drawn and it has stuck to it.
Anyone paying attention might observe a clear discord between the Newstalk ZB article and the manner in which this proposal has been distorted. Labour’s proposed first referendum does not contain a conclusive option for change, it contains a veto for those who unhappy with all of the alternatives. If following the first referendum sufficient numbers still wish to change then the Government’s proposed second referendum would be conducted as planned.
Despite the deputy political editor analysis that Labour’s refined proposal was contingent on “if Key also changed the order”, the actuality as presented by Newstalk ZB was considerably more nuanced if not conflicting. Likewise the Herald editorial’s argument that “A referendum without a known alternative is biased to the status quo and those who call for one know it.” is equivocation at best given that voting ‘no’ is a vote against all the options chosen by the panel. It’s also somewhat ironic to make such an argument given that this misrepresentation of Labour’s proposed alternative to the first referendum could itself be construed as political bias.
The response I received from The Press Council informed me that I was first required to make a direct complaint to the Herald editor. I responded along the lines that if the council felt the article satisfied their standards of impartiality then there was no point me wasting my time with it. I feel my position should be reasonably understandable given this appears to be a concerted pattern of misrepresentation by the Herald on this issue.
-
Polity: So who exactly placed conditions…, in reply to David Hood,
Heh, I enjoyed the Herald’s choice of photo on the front page for this article. Polls!? Who need’s em.
-
Hard News: A better thing to believe in, in reply to ,
I thought it was kind of beautiful, for the briefest few hours the prioritising of gender distinctions and stereotypes was disregarded and we became one ovulating mixed up mess.
-
Hard News: A better thing to believe in, in reply to Steve Johnson,
The purpose of a democratic society is where debate reaches a point where the best decision for the majority is chosen.
This made me curious as to exactly how popular Rugby is so I looked up the viewing figures for the 2011 RWC final:
Nielsen figures show 2,036,900 viewers watched the All Blacks take on France, that’s 12,000 more than those watching the semifinal and 333,600 more than the first game of the tourney, All Blacks vs Tonga.
2,264,150 or 55.8 percent of the population aged five plus tuned into the coverage, which was 90 percent of all viewers and makes it the most-watched event in New Zealand’s TV history.
An actual majority, That’s pretty cool aye.
so Inspired by this:
the Brave Blossoms pulled off one of the greatest upsets in international sport
I decided yeah! That’s something to believe in, I tracked down a delayed broadcast of that match on youtube, and emerged teary eyed, that sure was something special. Hooked as. So I went to check out how I could watch the All Black/ Argentina game on the tele
New Zealand SkySports (every matches in rwc2015)
Damn if we don’t have Sky Sports. No problem I thought, I’ll just have to watch one of those illegal sites. I did a bit of a google search, and I was in business, I caught curtain raisers in the form of US vs Samoa followed by Wales/Uraguay on wiziwig.tv where I’d managed to watch most of the 2011 RWC- the coverage was fine, only trouble was that site contained no link to the All Blacks/Puma’s match. Not to be defeated I opened realstreamunited.com the illegal streaming site where I’d managed to source the Fiji/England match, they had the link – bonanaza! By that point it was pretty cold so rounded up some headphones, switched on the Kindle, got into bed opened Realstreamunited.com, and full credit to them, one of their match links did open for 3 seconds, but from that point I had no joy. I went back to Wiziwig only to find that their tablet site had stopped broadcasting on January 1 2015. It was about 4:15am by this point but no problemo, I decided to go old school, I went to Radiosport clicked on their live coverage, it said I needed the Iheartradio app which may already be installed on my system, great! I went to check for the app, no app, so I clicked the download app button, we were in business, almost, we were at Amazon.com and the free App was not downloadable in my location. OK, no video, no audio, no worries mate. I logged onto stuff.co.nz to check their play by play text coverage. I fell asleep not long after.
So that’s something to believe in, sure only half of New Zealand households have Sky, but that’s no a significant hindrance given the Government voted to allow pubs to stay open without a special licence, and I’ll admit I’m soft, there was absolutely nothing stopping me riding the 2kms in the rain last night on my bicycle with no lights to see if the game was being broadcast at the local. And kids? well, a bit of bummer that, especially for those poor ones whose parents can’t afford a Sky subscription, in fact especially those poor ones for whom professional sport offers a real opportunity to escape poverty whose parents can’t afford a Sky subscription, perhaps they can get inspired and learn their skills from text coverage or better still buy a radio, or get good at internet copyright infringement, and who cares about the kids anyway, they can find some delayed broadcast, there’s nothing special about tuning into a live broadcast of a sporting match, they can read the news headlines.
’Cheating’ Richie McCaw provides fuel for critics at Rugby World Cup
Tells you pretty much all you need to know right? Kind of explains that whole National Party/All black symbiosis. as the PM said:
"There’s a reason why Richie McCaw, Conrad Smith and all these [All Blacks] have come out and said change the flag – everywhere they go in the world people wave their [own] flags. We don’t do that,"
Damn right we don’t. Watching others watching the national sport because we’re too poor to watch the national sport ourselves is no reason to wave a $26 million flag.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Steve Barnes,
As many have said before most Syrians already speak English, among quite a few other languages too.
Incidentally migrants on partner visas or family reunification visas aren’t required to speak English. Our family reunification visa system may have its issues but the lack of English language proficiency is not chief amongst them. Were English not the global lingua franca these persistent trivial objections you're patient enough to respond to might be less comical:
In one recent two-hour class, a twentysomething American teacher led a dozen advanced students through their grammar lessons by asking them to recount how they spent their weekend. There was a familiar refrain in the classroom as one student after another said she spent her time watching television—tuned not to Al Jazeera or another of the Arabic satellite channels, but rather to that juggernaut of daytime TV, The Oprah Winfrey Show.
Deena, a veiled 20-year-old Damascus University student, cheerfully explained the extent of Oprah’s influence over Syrians both male and female. To them, the queen of American pop culture, who sits down with politicians and Brad Pitt alike, represents everything that’s missing in Syrian society today. “On Oprah, everyone speaks freely about whatever they like,” Deena said. “They talk about sex, politics, family, all their problems in life. In Syria, we also all have these problems, but we can’t talk about them—that’s our biggest problem."
Even ISIS are in on it.
As Maz said 8 days ago:
Net migration to NZ was approx 60000 last year. “Where are they all going to live? What will they do? What about the language barrier?”
And we’re squabbling about a few hundred refugees; shameful and pathetic. We could take tens of thousands, if we just cut back a little on normal immigration. -
Polity: So who exactly placed conditions…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
‘they’ wanted you!
I can’t pretend we’re not flattered.
-
Hard News: RWC 2015: This wasn't in the script!, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
They needed four tries, but SANZAR gets bonus points.
