Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Did anyone else do the same?
Yes, but with Mau, it was because I couldn't give a fat rat's arse about her or whoever shares her bed.
With the 'murdering kid', I only read the story after Russell linked to it as part of a broader disucssion of some media issues - I saw it was flagged as a big story by the HoS when I was in the dairy on Sunday picking up milk. I suspected based on their past form it would be a beat-up, and having now actually read it, I haven't changed my mind. Seeing it flagged on the front page like that, along with a plug for Ratshit Glaucoma, tends to actively discourage me from picking up the paper.
One of the perks of my job is/was an automatic free subscription to the NZH. Despite the NZH being free, and it taking substantially more effort on my part to cancel the subsciption than to continue to allow the paper to be delivered each day, I have now cancelled the subscription. There are other ways to exercise my arms each morning than to spend 30 seconds desperately searching for something worth reading. And I can afford soft-ply.
-
sceptic tank
Is that something to do with the Fabians?
-
I believe it's the actual Ms C. And all her posts on here (yes, all six of them) have painted her in a far more flattering light than anything of hers I've read in the papers.
-
What ever happened to Fabian Fanboy?
Didn't he mutate into Carlton Crisp after eating too much snack food?
-
There is a clear difference in my mind to the actions of the employer (the HoS in this case) in deciding to send reports to Kuariki's house and the actions of individuals when faced with a difficult situation once there.
For all we know the reporters who were sent may have been told to get a good story or else. They may not have been as free to leave as some suggest.
None of this lets the HoS bosses off the hook. I think it is totally right to be asking questions, as many commenters have, about the decision-making process behind seeking this interview (particularly if media contact for Kuariki was verboten under his release conditions). We should also be asking what guidelines and training reporters are given for dealing with difficult situations of this nature, and what debriefing happens afterwards too.
The original story suggests that someone at the Herald team initiated the first contact by phoning him up for comment. He then either spontaneously invited them round for a more in-depth chat, or they angled for an invite. Either way, off they went for a chat. Bail conditions be damned! The Public must know .
I, too would like to know what, if any, guidelines there are for these sorts of situations. Is there something that says it's probably a bad idea to send two women to visit a known violent offender? Could they have stayed outside? If they could, should they have? Does APN provide any self-defence training for staff it puts in these sorts of situations?
And, without knowing exactly who is assigned to the crime beat at The Herald, what the male/female split is in that team, how they manage/mentor internally, etc, we can't really get an idea of what the odds of two women being picked as the story team are. But I suspect the chances of it occcurring naturally or randomly are pretty slim....
-
I think the reporter was quite entitled to want to know Bailey's thoughts on his latest conviction and spell of sub-standard Crown accommodation.
I could've been a little more careful about my wording, but didn't think people would assume I thought the reporters wanted to write a fluffy bunny story. Their interest in him is one-sided, and we all know it, but that doesn't mean they have no right to be interested. It sells papers, and Granny is frequently barely worthy of the label "tabloid".
Invasive is what they do.
Where did I say, suggest, or even imply in a veiled manner that they were wanting a good, balanced story? I'm sure the reporter was after some salacious comments that would make good headlines and provide fodder for the rent-a-quotes, but that's what the gutter press do, innit?
That reads like nothing more than "They sent women there so they could get a story about this sex-crazed young man". The stripper comment just finishes it off nicely.
I've seen you offer no evidence to the contrary. And given your other comments above, I think you've actually made my argument for me.
I think they did send two women round the because they expected they'd get a better reaction, possibly even turn a non-story into a story, because, to quote you, 'that's what they do, innit?'
I certainly wouldn't expect anything less than Granny's ordinary "journalistic standards" on the matter, but that doesn't make it any more justified to blame their sexual assaults on the reporters doing their job. I don't care how tawdry the story would've been, there's a strong stench of victim blaming being directed at the reporters.
Which I didn't do.
But if, as you've stated, being 'invasive is what they do', then when you're 'invasive' with violent, unpredictable people, a hazard of the trade is the ocassional smack in the mouth. Ask a 'fair go' or 'target' reporter. Doesn't make it right, but it's a fact of life.
Also, sending two people, even if they're both women, isn't exactly ignoring employees' safety. He doesn't have a history of sexual violence, for one, or of serious gang connections. Sending one would've been silly, sure, but sending two would meet most people's definition of reasonable care in the circumstances.
And frankly, although you might think it's an acceptable level of safety to send two women round in those circumstances, I don't: it's fucking stupid.
-
Did the HoS actually have a stated reason for the two reporters to be going round there? Or did some shitbag editor somewhere just go: 'hmmm, slow news week. Need a headline. You and you, you've got tits, get round the Kurariki house and poke him with a stick'.
Seriously, I reckon the HoS missed a trick or two. Next time they should just hire a couple of strippers and send them round with a photographer. Not only can you get the 'outrage at his animal behaviour!' angle, but you could probably work in something along the lines of 'look what your taxpayer dollars are funding now '. I mean, truth and facts are so over-rated when you've got a deadline to meet, right?
Actually, scratch that: Seeing as how times are tough and you need to save a bit of cash, just fire a few reporters and use the rest to make shit up as you go along. Tell us he's got Elvis in there or something. That should shift a few units.
-
If Labour gets to spend $1 million on radio and TV advertising, everyone else should be too. Anything less is strapping the chicken.
if you are of the opinion that the Greens ought have the same allowance as the National Party, you surely have to have the opinion that the Socialist Workers'* ought get the same allowance, and the anarchists, and the Posadaists and so-on.
You forgot National Front. I'm sure we'd love to see them getting taxpayer dollars to produce election material, right...?
-
Well, one guy got a bit bruised...
Will that do?
And you know what would now be happening of anyone had died. More breast beating and finger pointing than a gorrilla convention held in a '70's disco. 'oh woe! woe! why didn't someone do something to save those members of my family who decided to jump the safety fence clearly marked 'Tsunami. Do not cross' and have a picnic on the beach! Heads must roll!'
-
So, is anyone still doubting the value of National Radio for civil defence information?
Dunedin surfers?
Yeah, got half woken up by a text (new tech) at 7.30 this morning which basically said: turn on your radio (old tech).
Spent the rest of the morning with one ear tuned to NatRad while pottering around the house and wondering how far above sea level we actually are, and how quickly I could run up Mount Vic with a baby in my arms.
So not me. But NatRad listed more than a couple of events that got called off. Better safe than sorry, I guess. And they had a roving reporter who talked to a couple of people down in Mission Bay who didn't realise anything was going on until the reporter told them.