Posts by cindy baxter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Dylan
Yup, Paul Henry's "speedreader" was recently appointed by Steven Joyce to chair the Board of Education, and he's a Director of NZTE.
That Paul Henry utterly failed to mention anything other than Charles Finny's speed reading qualifications, when Finny went on to say that the book would "not change one vote" was quite something.
here's finny's profile on LinkedIn
http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/charles-finny/31/a58/7b1 -
Not forgetting Seven Sharp's puffery on Slater
http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/whaleoil-beef-hooked-video-6035344Hosking finishing with "he quotes my editorials all the time".
i'll bet he does.
-
I suspect that a lot of it wasn't very well known (not the back-and-forth) until after Judd Hall was killed (Jan 2014) and Hager got the emails "some weeks later"
-
" there was also a considerable amount of very personal information about relationships and other subjects, where the right to privacy outweighs any public interest. This material has not been included in the book and will not be passed to others. The fact that Slater and his associates have made a career of exposing the very private details of other people’s lives does not make it right to do that to them."
-
@Andrew
the ethics of how (stolen) material is used is not governed entirely by the fact that the material was stolen
Yup, overall agree. And, unlike ClimateGate, this content, checked and double-checked, IS in the public interest, not least Key's staff writing emails about hacking into Labour staff files and subsequent campaigns based on that info. And Slater has never occupied any moral high ground.
-
So this is interesting.
In November 2009 hackers broke into the files of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and released a deluge of emails to the public, arguing (incorrectly) that the conversations between the scientists showed duplicity over climate science.
They called it ClimateGate, even though nine separate investigations exonerated the scientists and showed the leakers had shamelessly cherry picked sentences out of the emails and twisted them.The Norfolk Constabulary never did get to the bottom of who had stolen the emails. The community I work in considered them stolen. Very much so.
Nicky is clear that there was a hack. He even says it in the Herald. I'm guessing there's going to be a police enquiry as to who "stole" these emails?
Morality question: Is there a difference? I know that I hold WhaleOil in the same regard as I do the guys who hacked/leaked the ClimateGate emails but the shoe's sorta on the other foot here. No, Nicky's not twisting the emails, I'd imagine, and has meticulously checked everything, but the way in which he appears to have received these emails and data seems remarkably similar to the ClimateGate affair.
-
That information could also go on the TV3 website, but I know how hard it is to get data up there in a specialised format
Surely a link to a pdf wouldn't be too difficult?
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to Pete George,
thanks Pete, good point.
But the code of conduct is worth looking at.
-
Coming into this conversation very late, but did anyone else listen to Media Watch on Sunday? A good piece about polling and the new Code of Conduct for media around reporting on polls, which I don't think TV3 has followed with its own poll.
But also an interview with Gavin White on the Say It blog who has gone all the way back to 1999 and looked at what the polls said vs what actually happened.
16 had National too high, while 3 had them too low. The most any company had underestimated National's vote by was 2%, while the most a company had overestimated National's vote by was 9%. One poll has had National's vote above their actual vote by more than the margin of error at three of the last five elections.
-
Serious belly laughs. I don't think Karl Rove will ever live this down.
On the really ugly side, this blog is quite something - a taste of libertarian hatred. http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html