Posts by Hebe
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: The End of Trust, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes, I think we’re talking about the wrong thing here. I’d be looking at the undeclared interests of one or two guests on The Panel, or Charles Finny “reviewing” Dirty Politics as a lobbyist clsely connected with the networks the book is about.
Agree: these things are not like the other. When the person pronouncing in public may be perceived as a disinterested commentator if their interest is not declared.
The shows are presented as journalistic examinations of issues. Viewers are entitled to know the participants' interests and leanings, and the effects those may have on the arguments presented. Basic ethical journalism practice.
Q&A should be doing the disclosing - and researching their participants.
-
Speaker: The End of Trust, in reply to Russell Brown,
[My question was to Sara re her original statement.So that's irrelevant too. ]
-
Thanks Paul. We can but hope you are correct.
Yet a few minutes ago on Twitter Fran O'Sullivan derides as "purist" someone asking for Q&A panelists' PR posts or interests to be disclosed. A leading business journalist dismissing calls for disclosure of interest. What would she say about the prospect of independent voices being required?
When the ethical rot is so endemic, how can it be excised?
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Tinakori,
...Nicky Hager was engaging in some post hoc rationalisation on the impact of his unguided missile.
You may be right about Hager. I don't know his motives. I have always read the election somewhat differently to the "Labour is a shoo-in" theory -- NZ First was always going to be a danger and to an extent the Conservatives if they cross over into the born-again-type churches' voters.
Maybe that thinking is because Christchurch is its own bubble with perceptions and conditions unique to the rest of NZ (for example, the jobless rate is below 3%), and a clear pool of disenchanted small-c conservative people looking for an alternative to National and Labour.
However, your comments still summarise the deflection strategy for Dirty Politics nicely.
-
Speaker: Vote for Water, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Governments of whatever hue cannot change attitudes through legislation. That takes far more complex and long-term awareness strategies.
I hold no candles for Labour’s record on climate change, the environment or water.
National plans to gut the RMA and remove protections; Labour does not. End of.
For a country full of supposedly smart agribusiness-people, the stupidity of degrading a profitable brand perception - 100% pure NZ - for short-term corporate-farming gain is unbelievable.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Tinakori,
Surely the timing of the release of Nicky Hager’s book …Or is he spinning … His rhetorical gymnastics and holier than thou stance…
All the main lines in one there Tinakori. Nice.
What about the very serious allegations of a Justice Minister undermining the head of an arm of law enforcement – the Serious Fraud Office? What about the subversion of democracy? What about the hounding of people who have different professional or political viewpoints? What about the allegations connecting the Prime Minister’s Office?
That those named in Dirty Politics have not slapped any form of defamation or legal proceedings against the book itself or Hager is the most telling reaction of all. Why not if it is so false?
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to Alfie,
It’s plain to anyone watching the whole quake scenario play out that the government has done a deal with reinsurers: EQC and insurers’ costs would be minimised as much as possible and most large pay-outs would be made in 2013-14 and after (see Munich Re’s annual report for 2010-11 for an outline of their payment strategy – to be done after their investments matured).
These, among other conditions, have been the price for continued reinsurance of EQC and earthquake insurance coverage for the whole of New Zealand.
In other words: my fucked foundations are paying for the future earthquake insurance of Wellington (which is likely to be the highest dollar-value casualty of a major earthquake).
-
It’s a compliment to Public Address' role a a key influencer to see that a professional writer is so concerned about the earthquake recovery’s effect on National’s party vote that they are prepared to spend a considerable amount of time crafting their lines in three different names at a crucial time of the election campaign.
Being paid by the hour? Or is the retainer covering it?
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to Russell Brown,
arguing like a grown-up
The Public Address motto.
-
Russell: thanks, lots of them, to you for the space, the threads, the calm concern on all the earthquake threads. Also to all the PASers who have been around, doing what they do so well here: informing each other, writing fine tales, taking great pictures, debating and giving strength. Every one of the regulars has played their part in helping shore up me and mine amid our hometown being smashed.
We live 2km from the February quake epicentre and near the river. We had 2.5 years of near constant earthquakes: 14,500 to date. Broken sleep, fear, kids to soothe, olds to care for, work to do, and untold downstream effects that cannot be planned for or mitigated. Floods this year sent many of us to breaking point. (My neighbours sold up and left today as a result of their children flipping after three floods threatened their house.)
Greg’s PAS piece about the floods and the physical and emotional aftermath struck a huge chord – people are still telling us how it (also reprinted in the Press) gave voice to their thoughts and made them realise they were not alone in feeling that way.
The piece also, without a doubt, prodded the government into some action when the TV networks picked up on the human cost.
A large group of us is now party as intervener to a Declaratory Judgement hearing in the High Court which has been brought by insurers and EQC to determine settlements for land damage and flooding issues. The Christchurch City Council has joined in to put its perspective.
Around 9000 property-owners will find out on September 26 whether their property is deemed to be flood-prone as a result of the quakes and about EQC’s proposed settlement. Coincidentally, six days after the election. The much fewer of us in the Judgement case go to court at the end of October. Then who knows.
Meanwhile we must find $5-7K to get someone to assess our knackered foundations because the former policewoman and young builder – who couldn’t work their new iPads – omitted to record the damage when they assessed the house for the February 22 quake. If we are lucky, EQC will accept the damage and refund the money.
I relate this because it is a common story: not out of the ordinary. It’s part of how many of us live. Many are much worse off: they cannot live in their own homes: many are close to financial ruin if not already there. The systemic abuse of power by insurance companies and EQC needs to be addressed – it could be your city, your home next.
If you cannot decide who to vote for, please give consideration to all this and look for the party that will help resolve it.
And great big hugs to Russell and you all. Thank you so much.