Posts by R A Hurley
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
We'll hear "common sense" conjured as a means of diversion from troublesome advice – and perhaps we should be worried about that. Because sometimes "common sense" is the most dangerous thing.
Preach it, Russell! This is the main thing that really worries me about this government. The seemingly willful dismissal of policy based on evidence and research in favour of what feels right (e.g., Tolley's education standards), or what will appeal to the Talkback Taliban (e.g., car crushing). Other than that, I have to give it up for Key. Just after the election I spent a lot of time worrying that he was the cardboard cutout in front of a cabinet line-up of unreconstructed 1990s privatisers and razor-men - whom he would be powerless to stop if they decided to actually run the country.
Actually... I still worry about that. But he does actually seem - against all odds - to be in charge. Still, the qualities that appear to have gotten him there - and that appear to be maintaining his position - seem predicated on exactly that kind of appeal to truthiness that bothers me.
Actually... now I've just gone and talked myself out of the respect I just claimed I had for him...
-
It's not necessarily for there to be any conspiricy, R A. That's the gist of Manufacturing Consent, and other commentary on this matter; it could be a systemic problem.
God no. Didn't mean to imply that. It isn't a shadowy cabal just accountants maximising the amount of money made in the media. that it no longer meets the wants of the public is irrelevant to them so long as they can sell the product.
Interesting. If I understand you correctly, the argument is something like: the media industry has become de facto incentivised (economically) to encourage journalism to be more superficial (and therefore cheaper, i guess), but not so superficial as to actually cause significant numbers of people to switch off the TV in disgust. In other words, the system as a whole trends to a point just above the bottom of the barrel.
-
When you add into the equation the factor that many media people believe the public can be convinced to want something they don't otherwise want...
This is a very good point, and - if true - goes a long way to negating my position. But, as to the truth of it, I can't say. Watching 'Century of the Self' and being addicted to Mad Men aren't qualification enough to argue that one.
Having said that. I'm sceptical for two reasons. Firstly, are people really homogenous enough to be subtly manipulated in great enough numbers to allow you to get away with cutting a few corners on the investigative journalism front? Is the effort worth the reward? And secondly, it does seem to imply a kind of top-down, shadowy cabal, kind of deliberate manipulation. I wonder if that's really what goes on in the boardrooms of big media companies.
-
No, we wouldn't. The public - all of them that I've encountered - do want higher quality reporting and commentary on public affairs. But print news media is a dying commodity entertainment product, and high quality journalism costs money that eats into owners (most non-existent already) profits. Broadcast media could do better, but again, high quality journalism costs money and may not be 'sexy' in televisual terms. And that's before you get into any conflicts of interest between news programmes on advertising-funded TV channels.
i understand your point, but what is "'sexy' in televisual terms" is driven by ratings, is it not? ratings might be a flawed measurement - and from what little i've heard, they are - but they are, despite this, broadly populist... advertising must also pay heed to viewer/reader numbers...
i might be wrong about all of this... i really don't know... and i don't mean to seem combative... but it seems reasonable that the existing model - dying commodity entertainment newspapers and conflict-of-interest with advertising news programmes alike - must be being rewarded in the marketplace... and, with advertising and sales figures being such prominent metrics, at least some of that reward must be coming from public patronage...
-
The only reason this occurs is because of the lack of will and talent displayed by journalists. When journalists only want a one sentence answer then complex issues can never be explained. When interviewers interrupt and derail experts who are trying to explain things then the public never even has the chance.
I agree with you entirely. But this, in turn, raises the question of why the media is in such a sorry state? If a majority of the public really wanted better journalism, wouldn't we have it?
-
I found Labour's inability to argue their case wrt lightbulbs, showerheads (and now maybe condoms) utterly pathetic. I don't necessarily think these are great ideas, but if, as a party you do, then you must surely be prepare to fight for them. Not run away like a gunshy dog at first resistance. And these weren't really difficult issues to argue for.
Wouldn't want to have something evidence based to attack the current government on.
Perhaps. But I think that the problem here is the importation of the American style right-wing idiot populism where evidence just doesn't matter. It's like arguing with creationists. If facts/arguments changed their minds, they wouldn't be creationists. I think Labour is finding itself having to wrestle with questions of how to work in an environment where evidence just doesn't matter, and how to engage with people who are either wilfully ignorant, or knowingly lying to those who are.
In other words. Why fight over lightbulbs when it will potentially cost you an election even if you're right.
I think it sucks, but I can understand why they're doing it.
-
Also, I think the latest Auto-tune the News is a little less than some of the others. For me the standouts were 2, 5, and 6. The latest one is just a chance to say 'look, we got T-Pain!'.
maybe... but i think the wonderful interweaving of refrains at the end shows a degree of compositional forethought and careful craft that suggests something more than a chance to show off T-Pain...
-
Here's another oddity, which I've been showing to everyone: a Bollywood version of 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'.
this is many kinds of awesome... i especially find myself intrigued by the complete reworking of the lyrics to embrace a kind of destiny/fate/true love angle... as though holding hands (without some kind of karmic sanction) was just not chaste enough...
or, of course, it could be terrible subtitling...
-
excellent... thank you Russell... i wasn't sure how to do that...
such a shame they saved the Supertop... i only ever went there once... i think it was to see Pearl Jam (that's how long ago it was)... and - as i recall - they seemed really quite annoyed about it... "thanks for inviting us to play in your... ummm... tent," Eddie Vedder said at one point, to general smirks from the rest of the band...
-
if i might talk about the Gregory Brothers for a moment...
since i first followed a link to a (very early) Autotune The News clip i have thought that, while awesome, there was more potential rather than actual brilliance on display...
each subsequent video was better than the previous one... a little more actual genius and a little less potential... but i always had the feeling they were working up to something truly grand... and with the latest ATTN, i think they have arrived...
i know you've probably all already seen this... but i can't take the chance that some of you haven't... go... go now...