Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Phil Lyth,
Journos seems to have an innate capacity to make a mess of percentages.
And we have a winner! Innumeracy is as big a factor here (if not more so) than some terrible political conspiracy; and there's nothing innate about statistical literacy. Like any other skill it has to be learned and maintained.
Of course, you can - and should - expect a lot better from senior journalists and ministerial staffers. (As a gratuitous aside, I'd also expect Coleman to be more than usually sensitive to not FUBARing numbers. In his previous life as a doctor, a miscalculated dosage could do pretty serious - or even fatal - harm.)
-
By Calliope's left tit, I never thought I'd plausibly be able to use "funky" and "Allen Curnow" in the same sentence. Well played Mr Buhne. Very well played indeed.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Russell Brown,
But yeah, I think we can blame the office of the Minister of Broadcasting for coming up with a completely bogus to number try and back up a decision.
Sure - especially when, as Geoff Lealand and others could explain in great detail, the uses and abuses of media audience figures are (to use some academic jargon) problematic and highly contested.
Even if you give Coleman personally the benefit of the doubt (and I'm more inclined to than Russell, I suspect) it's not encouraging if a Minister is being given epically misleading information by staff. Of course, no Minister is obliged to accept the advice they're given, but it really helps if it's at least reality-adjacent. :)
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
and I may be a misinformed member of the general public, but the notion of NZ on Air as a politically coloured entity of any kind is a pretty new one, brought about by recent actions by its members.
The board of New Zealand on Air have always been "political appointments" in the sense that it is a government funding agency with a responsible minister. "Political interference" is a very different -and extremely serious - beast, and if Drinnan doesn't know that he shouldn't be writing about the media. It's certainly not good enough for him to say it doesn't really matter, while implying exactly that.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Russell Brown,
Jesus, would it have killed Drinnan to acknowledge Tom Frewen’s work in single-handedly breaking these stories?
Yes? I'll own that the way Drinnan's treated you is a biasing factor, but he's chronically careless with facts and has a nasty habit of cherry-picking other people's work without attribution or credit. But, hell, why should he have to try harder - and do better - when he has zero competition?
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Sacha,
Whether there has been any political interference is neither here nor there.
The question is whether a politically appointed funding agency should be involved in documentaries.
Oh, sod off Drinnan – So, political interference is “neither here nor there” but you’ll keep implying it regardless? The real question is whether Drinnan, and his employer, really have much moral high ground to posture on here. It’s not as if The Herald’s effective monopoly in the Auckland newspaper market has had a great track record of elevating political discourse.
ETA: To be fair, Drinnan and The Herald have long had an ideological hard on against public funding of broadcasting - and it's not hard to see why APN isn't exactly disinterested when it comes to chipping at direct competition for viewers and advertising in a tight marketplace. But wouldn't it be nice if they'd just come out and spare us all the passive-aggressive concern trolling.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to James W,
And to think that Currie just got promoted.
Personally, I wouldn’t promote someone who was (I suspect) forced by APN’s laywers to sign his name to this.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the then-editor of the Herald on Sunday admitted running a story with fabricated direct quotes. Call me old fashioned, but I rather like direct, attributed quotes to have been demonstrably said by the person they’re attributed to.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And the latest from John Drinnan on TVNZ7
I'm not totally disinterested here, given Drinnan's inexplicable (and one-sided) feud with our host and my friend, but it would be wise to take everything he says with a grain of salt and added tequila to taste.
-
Hard News: Media Mathematics, in reply to Russell Brown,
This is such a common response from senior journalists.
And a bloody weird and defensive one in this instance, since I rather doubt O’Sullivan gets “final cut” (as it were) on the graphics, photos and headlines attached to her stories. You’d think senior journalists would care a little more because, however unfairly, it’s their reputations affected. (Around PA I get to write my own heads and slug lines, so any epic taste fails are all on me. Bugger.)
-
Legal Beagle: Cats and Coro II:…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Point being, the fact two different bodies asking the same question came to different answers indicates that there's no real clear right or wrong answer here.
And if S. 69 of the Broadcasting Act is ambiguous it's hardly the fault of either the BSA or the Electoral Commission, since they don't draft, amend or pass legislation - that's all on Parliament. :)
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 198 199 200 201 202 … 1235 Older→ First